Well, to get rid of all confusion, this is what I did. I downloaded the spec to know what should be implemented.
After that, I scanned the JavaDocs for changes and held them next to the MyFaces codebase (working from top to bottom). Where I found a change, I looked at the JavaDocs for the methods and constants etc and implemented those. Since I thought the JavaDoc is part of the spec and thus part of the interface contract of the framework, I used that one. But if you guys want to, I can remove the existing JavaDocs and recreate my own, but since we implement the same spec, they will probably have a great overlap... /Jan-Kees 2008/12/2 Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Gerhard: >> >> I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the >> JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the >> official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't >> looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the >> JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra >> sources, making them... equal... :) > > I haven't looked at a patch yes, but even taking "only" the javadoc is > not correct. > The javadoc comments is part of their code and licensed under the wrong > license. > > Or were you just using the "order" of the methods ? > > -M > >> >> Regards, >> Jan-Kees >> >> >> 2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Hi >>> >>> Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0 is now >>> available at: >>> >>> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314 >>> >>> regards >>> >>> Leonardo Uribe >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> hello jan-kees, >>>> >>>> first of all: thank you for your contributions! >>>> >>>> i had a quick look at some of your patches. >>>> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc [1] >>>> >>>> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the >>>> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc comments are >>>> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]). >>>> there are also classes with slight variations. >>>> >>>> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used by >>>> mojarra (cddl and gpl). >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> gerhard >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html >>>> [2] >>>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html >>>> [3] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> >>>>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which >>>>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well... >>>>> So we might be able to share the work. >>>>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already? >>>>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this >>>>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Werner >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Simon Lessard schrieb: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jan-Kees, >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them >>>>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> ~ Simon >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel >>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the >>>>>> community, instead of only using MyFaces... >>>>>> >>>>>> I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket >>>>>> for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together). >>>>>> >>>>>> Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things. >>>>>> I'm sure there are things to improve. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jan-Kees >>>>>> >>>>>> @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: >>>>>> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard >>>>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >> Hi, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every >>>>>> change. You'll >>>>>> >> find that most new classes and methods are already there though, >>>>>> but some >>>>>> >> new ones just popped with the public review version. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > it is great to see more and more active folks here! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -Matthias >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Regards, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> ~ Simon >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel >>>>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new >>>>>> API classes? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all >>>>>> those >>>>>> >>> interfaces/etc. ;-) >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> /Jan-Kees >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: >>>>>> >>> > Hi Jan-Kees, >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within >>>>>> myfaces-api.jar >>>>>> >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, >>>>>> but with >>>>>> >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. >>>>>> However I must >>>>>> >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > Regards, >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > ~ Simon >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel >>>>>> >>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> Hi all, >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces >>>>>> javax.faces >>>>>> >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or >>>>>> does this >>>>>> >>> >> cause >>>>>> >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, >>>>>> based on the >>>>>> >>> >> spec? >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets >>>>>> package are >>>>>> >>> >> missing. >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it >>>>>> needs to be >>>>>> >>> >> done by hand. >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> Regards, >>>>>> >>> >> Jan-Kees >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There >>>>>> are some >>>>>> >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF >>>>>> 2.0. Although >>>>>> >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see >>>>>> pdl) and >>>>>> >>> >>> the >>>>>> >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree >>>>>> population >>>>>> >>> >>> that >>>>>> >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm). >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as >>>>>> it's going to >>>>>> >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's >>>>>> Facelets and our >>>>>> >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first >>>>>> implemented, >>>>>> >>> >>> much >>>>>> >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve >>>>>> their own >>>>>> >>> >>> code and >>>>>> >>> >>> so on. >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should >>>>>> limit the >>>>>> >>> >>> amount >>>>>> >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates >>>>>> and bug >>>>>> >>> >>> fixes >>>>>> >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that. >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> Regards, >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> ~ Simon >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz >>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>>>>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb: >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> Hey Simon, >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from >>>>>> scratch? >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to >>>>>> my >>>>>> >>> >>>> knowledge >>>>>> >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2 >>>>>> >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the >>>>>> compatibility close >>>>>> >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change >>>>>> the packages >>>>>> >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared >>>>>> codebase. >>>>>> >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation >>>>>> or >>>>>> >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues >>>>>> between the RI >>>>>> >>> >>>> and >>>>>> >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship! >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> Werner >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > Matthias Wessendorf >>>>>> > >>>>>> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>>>>> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>>>>> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> http://www.irian.at >>>> >>>> Your JSF powerhouse - >>>> JSF Consulting, Development and >>>> Courses in English and German >>>> >>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >
