sounds good... and the 4-number version mirrors somewhat the RI, they
are at
1.2_04P02
so +1 (non-binding from me)
A20.1. not solved. Well, MyFaces is not Tomcat...
It is something confusing with Tomcat... one has to search the ewb to
know which servlet-spec
correlates to which tomcat...
Hi Manfred!
For me, all in your post result in a simple +1 from my side ;-)
A20.5. not solved, but if there is a JSF fix we must join all our
influence and convice Ed to call it JSF-1.3 ;-)
This only happens if there is a minor release of the spec do we
have seen something in the past?
Honestly, I think this is the best compromise we can reach. Nice job,
+1
Bruno
On 25/05/07, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 to your propsal of the numbering scheme...
The Blackdown people use something similar for their JDK Implementations.
Manfred Geiler schrieb:
Hi all,
I want
+1 to your propsal of the numbering scheme...
The Blackdown people use something similar for their JDK Implementations.
Manfred Geiler schrieb:
Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the pros and
On 25/05/07, Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sounds good... and the 4-number version mirrors somewhat the RI, they
...
But I would not expect official spec-releases other than the
JSF-nextGeneration spec (JSF 2.0 or JSF6, I fear the latter still has
its lobby).
I guess
I can live with that!
regards,
Martin
On 5/25/07, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25/05/07, Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sounds good... and the 4-number version mirrors somewhat the RI, they
...
But I would not expect official spec-releases other than the
Manfred,
Thank you for this! Below are a couple questions.
Manfred Geiler wrote:
Hi all,
snip
Ok, here is my compromise proposal, which I hope everyone can live with:
C1. We switch MyFaces Core to a 4 digit version numbering: 1.2.0.0 which
means
see inline
On 5/25/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manfred,
Thank you for this! Below are a couple questions.
Manfred Geiler wrote:
Hi all,
snip
Ok, here is my compromise proposal, which I hope everyone can live with:
C1. We switch MyFaces Core to a 4 digit version numbering:
+1
On 5/25/07, Zubin Wadia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1, great mediation Manfred.
Cheers,
Zubin.
On 5/25/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the
Manfred,
+1 for the Proposal.
Once the proposal is accepted, please post a proposal for the next version
number
for each affected sub project. I would posts one now for Tomahawk, but I do not
want to distract anyone.
Paul Spencer
Manfred Geiler wrote:
see inline
On 5/25/07, Paul Spencer
+1, great mediation Manfred.
Cheers,
Zubin.
On 5/25/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the pros and
cons once more. The goal is to find a compromise
+1 to MyFaces Core 1.2.x.y for the JSF 1.2 implementation name.
On 5/25/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the pros and
cons once more. The goal is to
On May 25, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote:
Arguments pro 2.x.y:
A20.1. Tomcat does the same. They do not align there container
versions to the spec and nobody complains.
This is an excellent proposal and clearly takes all the factors we
have discussed into account. I would have no
13 matches
Mail list logo
