I thought the change I made to FormComponent and DynaActionFormClass means that the backward compatibility issue should have now gone.
Niall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Rasmussen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:50 AM Subject: RE: struts-faces - which version of Struts > Fair enough. What type of branch would you suggest implementing? The only > place I know of that a change HAS to break the build is in > FormComponent.java. The others can stay deprecated and still build. When > would the deprecated methods in 1.1 be dropped? 2.0? or earlier? > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:49 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: struts-faces - which version of Struts > > Agreed, that will probably fix the nightly build issue, but I don't want to > leave Struts 1.1 users out in the dark. The reality is that most people > using Struts are at companies who don't allow them to use nightly builds of > Struts. > > I think we can solve this by tagging/branching. > > -James > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Rasmussen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:38 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: struts-faces - which version of Struts > > This is from the faces build file. Why making changes to faces that reflect > 1.2 will break the build > > <property name="struts.home" value="/usr/local/jakarta-struts-1.1"/> > > I think that changing this will fix all the build problems for faces > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Rasmussen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:36 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: struts-faces - which version of Struts > > Well I think they will only fail if the dependency is on struts 1.1. If it > moves to the 1.2 jar it will build won't it? > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:36 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: struts-faces - which version of Struts > > I don't disagree that struts-faces should stay up to date with the latest > code. Right now, however, if we do that, the nightly builds for > struts-faces will continue to be broken. That is a bad thing. I think we > need to discuss a more formal strategy for what should happen with > struts-faces. > > Struts-faces comes up a fair amount on the JSF forum site so there is > definite interest in the code. We should make our decisions based on the > fact that people will be using it with Struts 1.1 and it needs to be moving > forward like the rest of the code. Perhaps a tag/branch is in order. > > -James > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Rasmussen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:27 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28668] - struts-faces nightlies are empty > > James, > > I just read through the Roadmap for Struts. There is mention of support for > faces in 2.x but not before. Because of that it seems to me that you would > always want faces to compile against the latest struts as "bringing it up to > date" could prove hard if the codebase is already outdated and heavily > dependant on deprecated and even removed api's. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:06 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28668] - struts-faces nightlies are empty > I'm glad you brought that up. I just went back through the struts-dev > messages and saw that thread from last week. > > I disagree with the assertion that struts-faces shouldn't have to compile > against 1.1. Most companies are using 1.1 and will need to have a version > that compiles/works against it. If we decide we want to have it compile > against the CVS head code, then we need to create a branch or something. > > I am going to revert the changes I made to bug 29219 until we come up with a > game plan for how to handle this. > > -James > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Rasmussen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:56 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28668] - struts-faces nightlies are empty > > James > I had an email conversation with Joe Germuska and he was of the opinion > that there is no need to make faces compile to 1.1. It should always target > the latest build of struts. The reasoning was that it is not widely used > and is not a production ready piece anyway...so why hinder it with > dependencies on old code? > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:17 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28668] - struts-faces nightlies are empty > > He patched the 1.2 code, but that's where struts-faces is built from since > struts-faces came after the 1.1 release if I recall. > > Everything should work ok. I am double checking now... > > -James > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Rasmussen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:59 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28668] - struts-faces nightlies are empty > > What did you just patch then? 1.1 or 1.2? Will 1.2 now use the > (formBeanConfig, ModuleConfig) or (formBeanConfig)? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:52 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28668] - struts-faces nightlies are empty > > "James Holmes" wrote... > > > > Yes, we will need to check this in the morning because I'm not convinced > > that closing 22207 will fix the nightly struts-faces issue. I say this > > because I was able to get struts-faces to build fine today without the > 22207 > > fixed being applied. > > > > We'll see... > > But were you building it against Struts 1.1, because I understand (from what > Craig said) the struts-faces is being built against Struts 1.1 which is were > the compatibility issue lies - building against the current struts source is > fine. Problem is I don't know where to look to verify that - I guess you > would need to look locally at the build script on the machine that builds > the nightlies, wherever that is? > > Anyway I agree I didn't want to get ahead of myself and change it to > resolved until its proved to work. > > > > > Thanks for taking care of 22207 and welcome! > > -James > > > Thanks :-) > > Niall > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:33 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28668] - struts-faces nightlies are empty > > > > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG > > RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT > > <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28668>. > > ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND > > INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28668 > > > > struts-faces nightlies are empty > > > > > > > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 2004-06-09 00:33 ------- > > The problem was it wouldn't compile against Struts 1.1 > > > > I've applied the patch for Bug 22207, I'll leave the status as it is until > > the > > next nightly has been generated. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
