Re: Where is Shale1.1.0?

2008-06-06 Thread Gary VanMatre
 -- Original message --
From: Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Greg,
> My understanding is Shale v1.0.x and v1.1.x works with JSF 1.x.  Their 
> may be components that are JSF version specific, but this is the exception.
>

I agree but the shale test library for 1.1.x supports JSF 1.2 mock objects 
which means it has Java 1.5 & JSF 1.2 dependencies.  The rest of the libraries 
are still JSF 1.1 based.

 
> Paul Spencer
> 
> Greg Reddin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Mario Buonopane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> No, i don't remember that Shale 1.1.0 is meant to be used with JSF 1.2 but
> >> with 1.1. In fact i'm using with MyFaces 1.5 (JSF 1.1).
> >> What does mean "GA" codebase?
> > 
> > I don't remember if JSF 1.2 is a requirement for Shale 1.1 or not.
> > ISTR us deciding we would target JSF 1.2 but I don't think that
> > introduces backwards incompatibility.
> > 
> > GA means General Availability - basically a production release. Shale
> > 1.0.4 is alpha quality because of dependencies on unreleased
> > libraries.
> > 
> > Greg
> > 
> 



Re: Where is Shale1.1.0?

2008-06-06 Thread Paul Spencer

Greg,
My understanding is Shale v1.0.x and v1.1.x works with JSF 1.x.  Their 
may be components that are JSF version specific, but this is the exception.


Paul Spencer

Greg Reddin wrote:

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Mario Buonopane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

No, i don't remember that Shale 1.1.0 is meant to be used with JSF 1.2 but
with 1.1. In fact i'm using with MyFaces 1.5 (JSF 1.1).
What does mean "GA" codebase?


I don't remember if JSF 1.2 is a requirement for Shale 1.1 or not.
ISTR us deciding we would target JSF 1.2 but I don't think that
introduces backwards incompatibility.

GA means General Availability - basically a production release. Shale
1.0.4 is alpha quality because of dependencies on unreleased
libraries.

Greg





Re: Where is Shale1.1.0?

2008-06-06 Thread Greg Reddin
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Mario Buonopane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, i don't remember that Shale 1.1.0 is meant to be used with JSF 1.2 but
> with 1.1. In fact i'm using with MyFaces 1.5 (JSF 1.1).
> What does mean "GA" codebase?

I don't remember if JSF 1.2 is a requirement for Shale 1.1 or not.
ISTR us deciding we would target JSF 1.2 but I don't think that
introduces backwards incompatibility.

GA means General Availability - basically a production release. Shale
1.0.4 is alpha quality because of dependencies on unreleased
libraries.

Greg


Re: Where is Shale1.1.0?

2008-06-06 Thread Mario Buonopane

Greg Reddin ha scritto:

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Mario Buonopane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

I don't understand why you are working now on version 1.0.5 and one year agò
on 1.1.0! If  you go in project summary you talk about version 1.1.0!



Mostly because (I think) 1.1.0 is meant to be used with JSF 1.2, etc.
and the 1.0 branch is designed to work with JSF 1.1. I have projects
that are currently using JSF 1.1 and I'd much rather be using a GA
codebase than a milestone build. Plus I'd really like to see Shale
release a GA codebase. It's been, what, 2 years? With the removal of
the Tiles dependency I think 1.0.5 could be GA. So my main goal is to
get a stable, relatively bug-free version of Shale out the door.

  
No, i don't remember that Shale 1.1.0 is meant to be used with JSF 1.2 
but with 1.1. In fact i'm using with MyFaces 1.5 (JSF 1.1).

What does mean "GA" codebase?

No, sorry but your response does not help me because at the moment i don't
know if 1.0.4 has same fix of my version. I remember that when i downloaded
a snapshot version was because the stable version didn't work well.
I don't know waht to do know...



If you can identify your bug I can let you know if it is fixed in
1.0.5. If not, well 1.0.5 is not released yet, so maybe we can
backport it. I'm working on the release now so let me know as quick as
you can.

Again, I'm sorry your experience has been what it is. In the future
you will see more Shale work from me than you have in the past. We'll
get there, but it will take time.

Greg