Hi Just note that all tag hierarchy is generated on all myfaces core versions, so all classes on org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.taglib package and inner packages but UIComponentELTagBase and core.SelectItemTagBase are not used.
Right now, shared project contains: - Renderer code, to make possible reutilize it in tomahawk - Utility jsf code. I think it is a good time to create shared/trunk_4.0.x branch and add it as dependency to myfaces core 2.0.x. Note that this branch needs a dependency to myfaces api 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT. We need to add shared 4.0.x branch (and myfaces core 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT) to continuum server to get nightly builds (I don't have access to that location, so I can't do it!). I remember an approved vote to put myfaces core 2.0.x as trunk, but it was delayed to way 1.2.7 and 1.1.7 release. This is a good time to change it, create shared branch, put on continuum and also solve shale test (or myfaces test) jsf 2.0 problem. regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/7/6 Bruno Aranda <[email protected]> > Yes, it makes perfectly sense to put in in a different branch, > > Cheers, > > Bruno > > 2009/7/6 Simon Lessard <[email protected]>: > > Hi Michael, > > > > Personally I think it should be a different branch, I just never created > it > > because I'm not familiar enough with it. This will also allow addition of > > 1.5 features in it so I'm all for it. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > ~ Simon > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Michael Concini <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> What branch of shared should we be using for JSF 2.0 specific changes? > >> Looking at the pom for impl, it looks like right now both 1.2.x and 2.0 > >> builds are using the shared 3.0.6 branch. > >> I have some changes that will be ready to check in this week that > >> following the current implementation should be in the shared sources. > >> Specifically I'm referring to the RendererBase classes and ELTagBase > >> classes for the new OutcomeTarget components (h:link and h:button). > >> If we wanted to maintain the same shared source level for both 1.2 and > >> 2.0, I guess I could just put the base classes in the impl somewhere > >> instead, but that doesn't seem ideal since it wouldn't follow the same > >> pattern as every other component. > >> > >> Any advice/instruction here would be appreciated. > >> Thanks, > >> Mike > >> > >> > > > > >
