On 5/27/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sean,
I really think that most of our users are still using TC5.5 - as well
as the developers. I know of no one using Glassfish, and I know of no
one using TC6.
Why do you call this the most specialized of all cases, then?
Apart from
I see nothing to be gained by having a TC 5 / 1.2 branch. I really
don't see what the point would be. Maybe I missed something earlier in
the thread.
I agree. Martin mentioned wanting to use a stable version of Tomcat
and not any other container but I don't recall him explaining why this
Hi Sean,
I really think that most of our users are still using TC5.5 - as well
as the developers. I know of no one using Glassfish, and I know of no
one using TC6.
Why do you call this the most specialized of all cases, then?
Apart from that - my line of arguing has been that we want to
@Sean: I can't move to Glassfish - I'll never get through with that
with my administration people, no chance. And Stan said he's halfway
there.
Plus (and most important): I intend to solve the content interweaving
_without_ TC6.
@Craig: We can certainly release a not TCK tested version - we can
@Craig: We can certainly release a not TCK tested version - we can
just not call it TCK compliant.
anything done regarding a TCK ?
I hope an *update* for a new TCK (jsf 1.2) won`t take as long as your 1.1 tck
:-)
-Matthias
Please, everyone, get me right: I want to get moving on 1.2, and if
you'll keep putting obstacles in between me and the code, I'll move
nowhere and nobody else will.
It's a community decision guys, but generally in Open Source, you
shouldn't be in between someone who wants to get some work done
Martin,
Nobody is trying to slow you down. We just need to make sure that
your vision for the project matches everyone else. We're all stuck
dealing with the results of these decisions so its important everyone
weigh in.
Back to the branch question. If Stan is only 50% done and you are 0%
It might not be that simple to check in the portion of Stan's work that does not rely on TC 6. I suggest we take all of his work, and put it *somewhere*, and let Martin work from it, as soon as possible. As long as the location doesn't interfere with our current
1.1 work.On 5/25/06, Sean
On 5/25/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@Craig: We can certainly release a not TCK tested version - we canjust not call it TCK compliant.You'd better read the spec license again A package that implements some of the javax.* APIs from a spec needs to implement *all* of them.
You'd better read the spec license again A package that implements some of
the javax.* APIs from a spec needs to implement *all* of them.
@ Craig: Is this different the the 1.1 spec license? I seem to recall
a compromise solution where we released as milestone. Is that no
longer an option?
Yes, but implementing the APIs during the development phase and releasing as a Beta release is fine, though, isn't it ? I say this because we released a BUNCH of Myfaces implementations before we passed the TCK.. we just made sure to label it as Beta. Correct me if im mistaken...
On 5/25/06, Craig
On 5/25/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd better read the spec license again A package that implements some of the javax.* APIs from a spec needs to implement *all* of them.@ Craig: Is this different the the 1.1 spec license?I seem to recall
a compromise solution where we released
Hi Sean,
I have no problem with applying Stan's work to the 1.2 current branch
- as much of it as is tomcat 5 compatible right now. Stan, how much of
your work is tomcat 5 compatible? is it easy to separate this out for
now?
regards,
Martin
On 5/25/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we should check in Stan's work and just remove the TC 6 stuff.
I can't imagine he did a lot with the EL or content interweaving but
maybe I am wrong. I'm ok with checking in his stuff now and letting
you get started to strip away the TC 6 stuff.
Sean
On 5/25/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:02 PM
To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multiple SVN Branches (Was -- Re: JSF 1.2)
Maybe we should check in Stan's work and just remove the TC 6 stuff.
I can't imagine he did a lot with the EL or content interweaving
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multiple SVN Branches (Was -- Re: JSF 1.2)
Maybe we should check in Stan's work and just remove the TC 6 stuff.
I can't imagine he did a lot with the EL or content interweaving but
maybe I am wrong. I'm ok with checking in his stuff now and letting
you get started
@Martin,
How are you planning to separate the TC 5.5 stuff and TC 6 stuff if
Stan has already done the bulk of the JSF 1.2 work necessary? I agree
that current Tomcat users will likely stick with Tomcat (I know that's
my plan) but to me it seems like the most useful JSF 1.2 stuff is the
content
For the record, I'm ok with core 1.2 on the trunk and moving core 1.1
to a branch for bug fixes. In fact I recommended this a while ago but
I don't remember hearing a lot of support for that idea.
Let's split the problem in two.
@devs - if you are do not agree with 1.2 on trunk, please speak up
Hi!
+1 for branching the current trunk to a core1.1
+1 for working with jsf 1.2 tc5 on the new trunk
+1 to allow Stan to commit its work to a core1.2tc6 branch
whatever we do with this branch, we wont loose Stans work and it will be
best to have it in svn.
Whenever we decide to move our focus
As far as I can see, we never ever try to release a version out of the
1.2tc6 branch. So no need to do any special maintainance with this
branch - just an archive.
This part confuses me. I was under the impression that Stan was 90%
of the way there. So why would we plan on abandoning this
On 5/24/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I can see, we never ever try to release a version out of the 1.2tc6 branch. So no need to do any special maintainance with this branch - just an archive.This part confuses me.I was under the impression that Stan was 90%
of the way
Do we have an ETA on Tomcat 6?
Sean
On 5/24/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I can see, we never ever try to release a version out of the
1.2tc6 branch. So no need to do any special maintainance with this
22 matches
Mail list logo
