No no, go ahead! Jean-Louis
2012/1/4 David Blevins <[email protected]> > Didn't seem there were any objections to yanking MyFaces API from the > javaee-api jar. Speak up if you have other thoughts. > > Will aim to release this tomorrow if possible. Happy to wait -- just say > the word :) > > > -David > > On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > > maybe we can wait Jon talk (tuesday) before doing it? > > > > - Romain > > > > > > 2011/10/28 David Blevins <[email protected]> > > > >> We should probably yank the myfaces-api from the current javaee-api jar > >> snapshot. > >> > >> Seems this jar is really an implementation and if someone wanted to use > a > >> different Faces implementation they would be unable to do so. > >> > >> > >> -David > >> > >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Blevins < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> Quick question on the org.apache.myfaces.core:myfaces-api jar. > >>>> > >>>> Is it tied to MyFaces in some way? Guessing the answer is, yes, as it > >> is labeled "myfaces-api" and not something more generic like "faces-api" > >>>> > >>>> If the answer is, no, then the follow up is how often does its > contents > >> change? > >>>> > >>>> If it is stable and only changed once in a while, we might include it > in > >> the javaee-api jar we produce from OpenEJB/TomEE. We don't include > JavaMail > >> for example as it really isn't an API but an actual implementation. > Seems > >> like that is the case here. > >>> > >>> Nail on the head and all that. :) > >>> > >>> Matt > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -David > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
