Hi Jan-Kees, Yes, it sounds good.
~ Simon On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You know what? Just to be on the safe side, I can remove the JavaDocs > and create some new patches without any. I delete the other patches > that might be dangerous. > > That way, there should be no problems. As a short term solution, we > can just link to the official JavaDocs until we have our own... > > Sounds good? > > /Jan-Kees > > > 2008/12/2 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 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 > > > > >
