Niall, It appears this is true. However there is a problem with the validator dependencies for Struts. I got confused earlier about the original problem. Struts 1.1 uses commons-valiodator 1.1.2 and earlier I think(not really sure)... around about 1.1.3 there was a public API change (see bug #29219). This means that you cannot build faces on 1.2 without using 2 versions of validator (they didn't depricate the old methods). So you have to choose to ship with dependence on 2 commons-validators or branch the build. It isn't actually FormComponent that is the hold up (I don't think) it is JavaScriptValidatorTag.java that is stopping the compatability.
This is the reason James had to rollback my patch. Oh by the way...my email is acting strange. If I just sent an email that says I was able to compile on 1.1 and 1.2... I lied! :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 11:21 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: struts-faces - which version of Struts 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
