[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-4706?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17924182#comment-17924182
 ] 

Werner Punz edited comment on MYFACES-4706 at 2/5/25 5:33 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------

Ok the 3.x code is not exactly the same... javax -> jakarta namespace! it is 
mostly the same but had namespace changes and minor cleanups (aka smaller 
movements of files etc...)!

It basically is a port of the old codebase to the jakarta namespace, not quite 
sure why we did not use the new codebase in 3.0!

Can anyone remember (probably not ready by then), or it was decided back then 
to use the old one simply because it was too close to the release!

Either way a full synch is not possible, because of the namespace differences 
unless I rewrite the old codebase in a similar fashion like the new one does to 
resolve the namespaces dynamically!

I however could reduce some smaller cleanups to bring the code closer to the 
2.x codebase (it is mostly a few classes being moved somewhere else)

 

 


was (Author: werpu):
Ok the 3.x code is not exactly the same... javax -> jakarta namespace! it is 
mostly the same but had namespace changes and minor cleanups (aka smaller 
movements of files etc...)!

It basically is a port of the old codebase to the jakarta namespace, not quite 
sure why we did not use the new codebase in 3.0!

Can anyone remember (probably not ready by then)

 

> Sync jsf.js code between 2.3 and 3.0
> ------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MYFACES-4706
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-4706
>             Project: MyFaces Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.2
>            Reporter: Volodymyr Siedlecki
>            Assignee: Werner Punz
>            Priority: Major
>
> MYFACES-4522 synced up the javascript code between 2.3 and 2.3-next. 
> However, 2.3 and 3.0 branches are basically the same.  Therefore, the changes 
> to 2.3 should be applied to 3.0.   Support-wise, it would be easier since 
> they would share the same code base.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to