While build is still ok nop. Le 4 janv. 2012 08:15, "Jean-Louis MONTEIRO" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
