Ok, good, because I have one teammate doing specifically that (which is, happily for me, not myself).
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly from Mojarra is wrong, but > > recreating it with the same result is permitted right? > > yes. > I think we had that discussion already in the past. > I think Grant did some volunteering in fixing JavaDoc. > > -M > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> 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 > > > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >
