I would say definitely release a new one... On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]>wrote:
> cool. > > Leo, all: > do you have the feeling we may need a new alpha? I saw some fixes > coming in, and producing some > alphas at least gives us more visibility :-) > > WDYT ? > > -Matthias > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > > > I deploy a snapshot here: > > > > > http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository/org/apache/myfaces/core/ > > > > regards, > > > > Leonardo Uribe > > > > 2009/12/27 Jan-Kees van Andel <[email protected]> > >> > >> I don't see the problem of building a snapshot, but for some reason > >> Continuum is unavailable. I get a "Connection Reset" http error. > >> > >> I'm also not sure if I have build rights in Continuum, but I'm sure > >> some guys on this thread do... > >> > >> /JK > >> > >> > >> 2009/12/26 David Jencks <[email protected]>: > >> > Many thanks for applying this! > >> > > >> > If it doesn't go against any myfaces development policies, it would be > >> > great > >> > if someone could deploy a snapshot built after this patch. > >> > > >> > thanks > >> > david jencks > >> > > >> > On Dec 24, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > >> > > >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=893759 > >> >> > >> >> David, thanks for the patch > >> >> > >> >> -Matthias > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Scott O'Bryan <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Yah guys, thanks for clearing that up. Your right that I didn't > take > >> >>> a look at the patch and mis understood your proposal. +1 to the > >> >>> patch. > >> >>> > >> >>> Sent from my iPhone > >> >>> > >> >>> On Dec 24, 2009, at 2:27 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected] > > > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Hey David, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:32 PM, David Jencks > >> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I'm afraid there is still a lot of confusion about the proposed > >> >>>>> patch. The > >> >>>>> comments don't appear to me to relate to the patch. I'm not sure > >> >>>>> how to > >> >>>>> proceed other than through excessive and rather obnoxious > >> >>>>> repetition, for > >> >>>>> which I apologize. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> :-) No worries > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> If there is some more information I could provide to > >> >>>>> clear things up please let me know what it is. I could provide > >> >>>>> before-and-after manifest.mf but in my experience these are really > >> >>>>> hard to > >> >>>>> see what is going on in due to the rather opaque formatting rules, > >> >>>>> I think > >> >>>>> the maven-bundle-plugin configuration from the patch is a lot > >> >>>>> clearer. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> +1 on a patch > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Scott O'Bryan wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I think I agree with Matthias that this may be problematic. If > you > >> >>>>> compile > >> >>>>> something against Servlet 3.0 classes, you very well may run into > >> >>>>> some > >> >>>>> runtime issues if you then try to use those binaries in a Servlet > >> >>>>> 2.5 type > >> >>>>> environment. You generally *WILL NOT* run into problems if you do > >> >>>>> the > >> >>>>> reverse. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> True, but irrelevant to the change proposed in the patch. The > >> >>>>> patch does > >> >>>>> not change any dependencies. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I think that was misunderstood ? > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Now that's not to say it's impossible. Trinidad, for instance, > >> >>>>> builds > >> >>>>> against the Portlet 2.0 jars yet we work in Portlet 1.0 as well, > >> >>>>> but we had > >> >>>>> to use a bunch of proxy objects attached to interfaces and a lot > of > >> >>>>> reflection to get this to work correctly. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I guess I'm wondering what issue you have right now with the > current > >> >>>>> dependencies. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> None, I'm not proposing changing any dependencies. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I think it is now more clear > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Just because myfaces depends on Servlet 2.5 does not mean that > >> >>>>> geronimo > >> >>>>> can't depend on Servlet 3.0. They should both be "provided" > >> >>>>> dependencies. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The patch does not relate to maven dependencies in any way. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Yes, correct > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> If you *DO* need Servlet 3.0 support as a library, I would suggest > >> >>>>> adding it > >> >>>>> as a profile which DOES NOT run by default.. Just my $.02.. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> A profile would not be able to affect this issue, since we need > >> >>>>> different > >> >>>>> osgi metadata in the published jars. We don't care what myfaces > >> >>>>> builds > >> >>>>> against. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> fair enough :-) > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> So, here's the patch: > >> >>>>> Index: impl/pom.xml > >> >>>>> > =================================================================== > >> >>>>> --- impl/pom.xml (revision 892639) > >> >>>>> +++ impl/pom.xml (working copy) > >> >>>>> @@ -223,13 +223,13 @@ > >> >>>>> javax.ejb;resolution:=optional, > >> >>>>> javax.el;version="[1.0.0, 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> javax.naming, > >> >>>>> - javax.persistence;version="[1.0.0, > >> >>>>> 2.0.0)";resolution:=optional, > >> >>>>> - javax.portlet;version="[1.0.0, > >> >>>>> 2.0.0)";resolution:=optional, > >> >>>>> - javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> - javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> - javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> + javax.persistence;version="[1.0.0, > >> >>>>> 2.1)";resolution:=optional, > >> >>>>> + javax.portlet;version="[1.0.0, > >> >>>>> 2.1)";resolution:=optional, > >> >>>>> + javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)", > >> >>>>> + javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)", > >> >>>>> + javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)", > >> >>>>> javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.core;version="[1.1.2, > >> >>>>> 2.0.0)", > >> >>>>> - javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, > >> >>>>> 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> + javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, > 3.1)", > >> >>>>> javax.xml.parsers, > >> >>>>> org.apache;resolution:=optional, > >> >>>>> org.apache.commons.beanutils;version="[1.7.0, > >> >>>>> 2.0.0)", > >> >>>>> Index: api/pom.xml > >> >>>>> > =================================================================== > >> >>>>> --- api/pom.xml (revision 892639) > >> >>>>> +++ api/pom.xml (working copy) > >> >>>>> @@ -221,12 +221,12 @@ > >> >>>>> </Export-Package> > >> >>>>> <Import-Package> > >> >>>>> javax.el;version="[1.0.0, 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> - javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> - javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> - javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> + javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)", > >> >>>>> + javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)", > >> >>>>> + javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)", > >> >>>>> javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.core;version="[1.1.2, > >> >>>>> 2.0.0)", > >> >>>>> javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql;version="[1.1.2, > >> >>>>> 2.0.0)", > >> >>>>> - javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, > >> >>>>> 3.0.0)", > >> >>>>> + javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, > 3.1)", > >> >>>>> org.apache.commons.logging;version="[1.1.1, > >> >>>>> 2.0.0)", > >> >>>>> javax.faces.*;version="${project.version}" > >> >>>>> </Import-Package> > >> >>>>> I think it's fairly clear that this does not change the maven > >> >>>>> dependencies > >> >>>>> or what myfaces is building against. All it does is allow myfaces > >> >>>>> to be > >> >>>>> used in an osgi environment with a servlet 3 spec jar. That is > >> >>>>> currently > >> >>>>> not possible. This is blocking geronimo-myfaces 2 integration. I > >> >>>>> can't > >> >>>>> imagine any scenario that currently works that this proposed > change > >> >>>>> would > >> >>>>> affect, all it does is allow myfaces to be used in more > >> >>>>> environments. If > >> >>>>> you think this change will prevent a currently working scenario > >> >>>>> from working > >> >>>>> please explain what it is and how. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I think I am totally fine on the <Import-Package> changes. > >> >>>> Let me give your patch a try. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> David, thanks for bugging you on that, again. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -Matthias > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> thanks > >> >>>>> david jencks > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Scott > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> David Jencks wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Matthias, > >> >>>>> I'm not sure you understand what Ivan is requesting. The osgi > >> >>>>> package > >> >>>>> version metadata does not specify what jar myfaces is built > >> >>>>> against, but > >> >>>>> does restrict which package versions myfaces can be used with in > an > >> >>>>> osgi > >> >>>>> environment. While the osgi package version metadata is not part > >> >>>>> of javaee > >> >>>>> specs, there seems to be general agreement that the spec version > >> >>>>> should be > >> >>>>> used as the package version for api jars. So, in order for > myfaces > >> >>>>> to be > >> >>>>> used in a javee 6 environment, it needs to allow wiring to a > >> >>>>> servlet 3.0 > >> >>>>> spec jar. That doesn't mean that you need to build myfaces > against > >> >>>>> a > >> >>>>> servlet 3 jar, nor does it prevent myfaces from working with > >> >>>>> servlet 2.5 > >> >>>>> spec jars in, say, a javaee 5 environment. > >> >>>>> I'd appreciate it if someone could update trunk for this so we can > >> >>>>> continue > >> >>>>> with integrating myfaces 2 in geronimo. I've attached a suitable > >> >>>>> patch to > >> >>>>> MYFACES-2290 as > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12428613/allow-ee6-versioned-apis.diff > >> >>>>> With this patch we can at least start a server that has loaded > >> >>>>> myfaces 2. > >> >>>>> Hopefully soon we'll be able to run the ee6 version of the tck. > >> >>>>> many thanks > >> >>>>> david jencks > >> >>>>> On Nov 26, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Ivan, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> we can't use servlet 3.0.0 yet. Not yet final ... > >> >>>>> and jsf 2.0 has _no_ dependency to it... > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -Matthias > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Ivan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi, is it possible to update the accepted servlet spec version to > >> >>>>> 3.0.0 in > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> the configurations of maven-bundle-plugin? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Thanks ! > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 2009/11/26 Werner Punz <[email protected]> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> +1 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Leonardo Uribe schrieb: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I was running the needed tasks to get the 2.0.0-alpha release of > >> >>>>> Apache > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> MyFaces core out. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Please note that this vote concerns all of the following parts: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 1. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.shared" v4.0.1-alpha > >> >>>>> [1] > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 2. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.test" v1.0.0-alpha > [1] > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 3. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.core" v2.0.0-alpha > [1] > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The artifacts are deployed to my private Apache account ([1] and > [3] > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> for binary and source packages). > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The release notes could be found at [4]. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Also the clirr test does not show binary incompatibilities with > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> myfaces-api. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Please take a look at the "2.0.0-alpha" artifacts and vote! > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Please note: This vote is "majority approval" with a minimum of > >> >>>>> three > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> +1 votes (see [3]). > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------ > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [ ] +0 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be > >> >>>>> released, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> and why.............. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------ > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Thanks, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Leonardo Uribe > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [1] > >> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces200alpha<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/myfaces200alpha> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [3] > >> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces200alphabinsrc<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/myfaces200alphabinsrc> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [4] > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10600&styleName=Html&version=12313389 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -- > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Ivan > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -- > >> >>>>> 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 > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> 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 > -- Grant Smith
