Hi Really the advantage to work in 2.1.x-client-window is if people is working in 2.2.x, there are chances that by some commit, the code gets unstable for some time. Since 2.1.x-client-window is JSF 2.1 + client window api does not contain any additional new feature, you can work safely with those artifacts. If there is a change there, we can run a merge and push them in 2.2.x (run that task is fairly simple).
My suggestion is work in 2.1.x or 2.2.x. When client-window api get stable, we can backport it to 2.1 in one step, knowing the changes done and the implications. regards, Leonardo Uribe 2012/11/16 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > I remember this a bit different. But maybe I'm wrong. > > Gerhard and I created all that windowId stuff in the first place in CODI and > pushed this feature to the spec as well (3 hours late night discussion with > Ed at the last con-fess) . The idea was to get this 'right' in JSF-2.2 first > and only backport it to 2.1 later. > It's much easier to do all the testing in vanilla because that's the only way > you can get the javax.faces API stable and mature. And after that is done we > can backport it. Maintaining this branch is pure pita and costs enormous > amount of time without gaining much benefit right now. This is a sandbox > feature - it's by far finished yet. So I personally see no need to maintain > it twice. Even worse if it's only an almost 1:1 clone. Pure waste of manpower. > > Let's get this properly done in 2.2.x and if it looks ok port it over to 2.1.x > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> >> To: MyFaces Development <[email protected]>; Mark Struberg >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:55 PM >> Subject: Re: 2.1-windowId branch >> >> My understanding is that there was no 2.2 to work in when this branch >> was started. >> >> The idea was to "get it right" in 2.1 in our proprietary >> implementation, and then use that to insure that the 2.2 spec worked >> in practice as well as in theory. >> >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I checked the work done in there and Imo this is far from usable. Let's >> get the windowId right in 2.2 an backport it later. >>> >>> >>> It doesn't make any sense to have 2 branches to do try & error in >> this area. To stress your butterfly analogy: there is a difference between a >> cocoon and a hydra ;) >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>
