The clientWindow stuff needs jsf.js -2.2. There is no way you can do that in 2.1 without introducing changes.
----- Original Message ----- > From: Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> > To: MyFaces Development <[email protected]>; Mark Struberg > <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 4:40 PM > Subject: Re: 2.1-windowId branch > > 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 >>>> >>> >
