You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org> on 2013/10/17 22:47:08 UTC
[DISCUSS] trinidad.next
hi @ all,
we haven't seen a trinidad release for almost >20 months<.
it's known that other projects are based on trinidad and therefore it's
obvious that they have to use snapshot versions.
imo:
since there are commits on a regular basis, there should be also releases
on a regular basis.
regards,
gerhard
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Gerhard, what he's saying is that we have several cases that require a base implementation. Mostly they are for cases that are outside of the JSF lifecycle. It MAY be possible to retrofit these cases with the ExternalContextFactory and the wrapper, but this work hasn't been done yet.
--
Scott O'Bryan
On October 30, 2013 at 5:13:41 PM, Gerhard Petracek (gerhard.petracek@gmail.com) wrote:
hi blake,
many other libs don't have an issue with using the std. wrapper approach (+ ExternalContextWrapper).
-> without concrete details we can't follow, since ExternalContextWrapper was introduced for keeping libs as stable/compatible as possible (across spec. revisions).
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2013/10/30 Blake Sullivan <bl...@oracle.com>
That's only if you are wrapping another ExternalContext. If you need to create an ExternalContext out of thin air, then any new abstract methods are a problem. Essentially, the JSF specification made an incompatible api change between JSF 2.0 and 2.1.
-- Blake Sullivan
On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
@ExternalContext:
there shouldn't be an issue due to ExternalContextWrapper.
in any case +1 for the rest.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2013/10/30 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
Gerhard and Devs,
The problem is there was some 2.1 stuff added to the ExternalContext I believe. At any rate, I agree with you and I've managed to free up some free time to get a release. So here is what I suggest:
1) I'm going to begin the release of the Trinidad plugins. With voting this should give us a couple of days to get the main trinidad 2.1 release where we want it.
2) I'm hearing concerns about some of the functionality, so while the Trinidad Plugin release is underway, let's try and figure out which uncomiited community patches are out there and should make this release. Getting help from you guys on which bugs are important would be a huge help because there is a lot in our bug queue and it would take me a long time to sort everything out.
3) I've already fixed Gerhard's issue he raised below. You're 100% right, this shouldn't have happened. There is a slight build with the Jenkins sanity and I'm taking a look at that now, but the snapshots are building fine.
4) Let's get through this release and then we'll talk about future steps once the release is complete.
Sounds like a plan?
--
Scott O'Bryan
On October 30, 2013 at 7:59:38 AM, Gerhard Petracek (gerhard.petracek@gmail.com) wrote:
you
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
i guess it's quite specific to trinidad and other libs with similar
requirements just use a different approach (and/or abstraction) to do the
same.
now it's clear what was done (and the reason for it), however, as we see
there are clear limitations once you are doing it that way.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2013/10/31 Blake Sullivan <bl...@oracle.com>
> I assume that the specific issue is when Trinidad is using the
> ExternalContext as an api to hide Servlet vs. Portlet differences BEFORE
> the FacesContext is created. In these cases, Trinidad needs to create
> concrete ExternalContext implementations for Servlets and Portlets. An
> example of this are the Configurators that abstract away ServletFilters.
> Other frameworks may not have tis functionality, but regardless JSF 2.0
> and JSF 2.1 have api incompatibilities that I believe are illegal for minor
> releases.
>
> -- Blake Sullivan
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>
> hi blake,
>
> many other libs don't have an issue with using the std. wrapper approach
> (+ ExternalContextWrapper).
> -> without concrete details we can't follow, since ExternalContextWrapper
> was introduced for keeping libs as stable/compatible as possible (across
> spec. revisions).
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
> JavaEE Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
> 2013/10/30 Blake Sullivan <bl...@oracle.com>
>
>> That's only if you are wrapping another ExternalContext. If you need to
>> create an ExternalContext out of thin air, then any new abstract methods
>> are a problem. Essentially, the JSF specification made an incompatible api
>> change between JSF 2.0 and 2.1.
>>
>> -- Blake Sullivan
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>>
>> @ExternalContext:
>> there shouldn't be an issue due to ExternalContextWrapper.
>>
>> in any case +1 for the rest.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>> http://www.irian.at
>>
>> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
>> JavaEE Consulting, Development and
>> Courses in English and German
>>
>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/30 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Gerhard and Devs,
>>>
>>> The problem is there was some 2.1 stuff added to the ExternalContext I
>>> believe. At any rate, I agree with you and I've managed to free up some
>>> free time to get a release. So here is what I suggest:
>>>
>>> 1) I'm going to begin the release of the Trinidad plugins. With voting
>>> this should give us a couple of days to get the main trinidad 2.1 release
>>> where we want it.
>>>
>>> 2) I'm hearing concerns about some of the functionality, so while the
>>> Trinidad Plugin release is underway, let's try and figure out which
>>> uncomiited community patches are out there and should make this release.
>>> Getting help from you guys on which bugs are important would be a huge
>>> help because there is a lot in our bug queue and it would take me a long
>>> time to sort everything out.
>>>
>>> 3) I've already fixed Gerhard's issue he raised below. You're 100%
>>> right, this shouldn't have happened. There is a slight build with the
>>> Jenkins sanity and I'm taking a look at that now, but the snapshots are
>>> building fine.
>>>
>>> 4) Let's get through this release and then we'll talk about future steps
>>> once the release is complete.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a plan?
>>> --
>>> Scott O'Bryan
>>>
>>> On October 30, 2013 at 7:59:38 AM, Gerhard Petracek (
>>> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com <//...@gmail.com>) wrote:
>>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Blake Sullivan <bl...@oracle.com>.
I assume that the specific issue is when Trinidad is using the ExternalContext as an api to hide Servlet vs. Portlet differences BEFORE the FacesContext is created. In these cases, Trinidad needs to create concrete ExternalContext implementations for Servlets and Portlets. An example of this are the Configurators that abstract away ServletFilters. Other frameworks may not have tis functionality, but regardless JSF 2.0 and JSF 2.1 have api incompatibilities that I believe are illegal for minor releases.
-- Blake Sullivan
On Oct 30, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> hi blake,
>
> many other libs don't have an issue with using the std. wrapper approach (+ ExternalContextWrapper).
> -> without concrete details we can't follow, since ExternalContextWrapper was introduced for keeping libs as stable/compatible as possible (across spec. revisions).
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
> JavaEE Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
> 2013/10/30 Blake Sullivan <bl...@oracle.com>
> That's only if you are wrapping another ExternalContext. If you need to create an ExternalContext out of thin air, then any new abstract methods are a problem. Essentially, the JSF specification made an incompatible api change between JSF 2.0 and 2.1.
>
> -- Blake Sullivan
>
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>
>> @ExternalContext:
>> there shouldn't be an issue due to ExternalContextWrapper.
>>
>> in any case +1 for the rest.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>> http://www.irian.at
>>
>> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
>> JavaEE Consulting, Development and
>> Courses in English and German
>>
>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/30 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
>> Gerhard and Devs,
>>
>> The problem is there was some 2.1 stuff added to the ExternalContext I believe. At any rate, I agree with you and I've managed to free up some free time to get a release. So here is what I suggest:
>>
>> 1) I'm going to begin the release of the Trinidad plugins. With voting this should give us a couple of days to get the main trinidad 2.1 release where we want it.
>>
>> 2) I'm hearing concerns about some of the functionality, so while the Trinidad Plugin release is underway, let's try and figure out which uncomiited community patches are out there and should make this release. Getting help from you guys on which bugs are important would be a huge help because there is a lot in our bug queue and it would take me a long time to sort everything out.
>>
>> 3) I've already fixed Gerhard's issue he raised below. You're 100% right, this shouldn't have happened. There is a slight build with the Jenkins sanity and I'm taking a look at that now, but the snapshots are building fine.
>>
>> 4) Let's get through this release and then we'll talk about future steps once the release is complete.
>>
>> Sounds like a plan?
>> --
>> Scott O'Bryan
>>
>> On October 30, 2013 at 7:59:38 AM, Gerhard Petracek (gerhard.petracek@gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> you
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
hi blake,
many other libs don't have an issue with using the std. wrapper approach
(+ ExternalContextWrapper).
-> without concrete details we can't follow, since ExternalContextWrapper
was introduced for keeping libs as stable/compatible as possible (across
spec. revisions).
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2013/10/30 Blake Sullivan <bl...@oracle.com>
> That's only if you are wrapping another ExternalContext. If you need to
> create an ExternalContext out of thin air, then any new abstract methods
> are a problem. Essentially, the JSF specification made an incompatible api
> change between JSF 2.0 and 2.1.
>
> -- Blake Sullivan
>
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>
> @ExternalContext:
> there shouldn't be an issue due to ExternalContextWrapper.
>
> in any case +1 for the rest.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
> JavaEE Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
> 2013/10/30 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
>
>> Gerhard and Devs,
>>
>> The problem is there was some 2.1 stuff added to the ExternalContext I
>> believe. At any rate, I agree with you and I've managed to free up some
>> free time to get a release. So here is what I suggest:
>>
>> 1) I'm going to begin the release of the Trinidad plugins. With voting
>> this should give us a couple of days to get the main trinidad 2.1 release
>> where we want it.
>>
>> 2) I'm hearing concerns about some of the functionality, so while the
>> Trinidad Plugin release is underway, let's try and figure out which
>> uncomiited community patches are out there and should make this release.
>> Getting help from you guys on which bugs are important would be a huge
>> help because there is a lot in our bug queue and it would take me a long
>> time to sort everything out.
>>
>> 3) I've already fixed Gerhard's issue he raised below. You're 100%
>> right, this shouldn't have happened. There is a slight build with the
>> Jenkins sanity and I'm taking a look at that now, but the snapshots are
>> building fine.
>>
>> 4) Let's get through this release and then we'll talk about future steps
>> once the release is complete.
>>
>> Sounds like a plan?
>> --
>> Scott O'Bryan
>>
>> On October 30, 2013 at 7:59:38 AM, Gerhard Petracek (
>> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com <//...@gmail.com>) wrote:
>>
>> you
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Blake Sullivan <bl...@oracle.com>.
That's only if you are wrapping another ExternalContext. If you need to create an ExternalContext out of thin air, then any new abstract methods are a problem. Essentially, the JSF specification made an incompatible api change between JSF 2.0 and 2.1.
-- Blake Sullivan
On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> @ExternalContext:
> there shouldn't be an issue due to ExternalContextWrapper.
>
> in any case +1 for the rest.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
> JavaEE Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
> 2013/10/30 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
> Gerhard and Devs,
>
> The problem is there was some 2.1 stuff added to the ExternalContext I believe. At any rate, I agree with you and I've managed to free up some free time to get a release. So here is what I suggest:
>
> 1) I'm going to begin the release of the Trinidad plugins. With voting this should give us a couple of days to get the main trinidad 2.1 release where we want it.
>
> 2) I'm hearing concerns about some of the functionality, so while the Trinidad Plugin release is underway, let's try and figure out which uncomiited community patches are out there and should make this release. Getting help from you guys on which bugs are important would be a huge help because there is a lot in our bug queue and it would take me a long time to sort everything out.
>
> 3) I've already fixed Gerhard's issue he raised below. You're 100% right, this shouldn't have happened. There is a slight build with the Jenkins sanity and I'm taking a look at that now, but the snapshots are building fine.
>
> 4) Let's get through this release and then we'll talk about future steps once the release is complete.
>
> Sounds like a plan?
> --
> Scott O'Bryan
>
> On October 30, 2013 at 7:59:38 AM, Gerhard Petracek (gerhard.petracek@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> you
>
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
@ExternalContext:
there shouldn't be an issue due to ExternalContextWrapper.
in any case +1 for the rest.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2013/10/30 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
> Gerhard and Devs,
>
> The problem is there was some 2.1 stuff added to the ExternalContext I
> believe. At any rate, I agree with you and I've managed to free up some
> free time to get a release. So here is what I suggest:
>
> 1) I'm going to begin the release of the Trinidad plugins. With voting
> this should give us a couple of days to get the main trinidad 2.1 release
> where we want it.
>
> 2) I'm hearing concerns about some of the functionality, so while the
> Trinidad Plugin release is underway, let's try and figure out which
> uncomiited community patches are out there and should make this release.
> Getting help from you guys on which bugs are important would be a huge
> help because there is a lot in our bug queue and it would take me a long
> time to sort everything out.
>
> 3) I've already fixed Gerhard's issue he raised below. You're 100% right,
> this shouldn't have happened. There is a slight build with the Jenkins
> sanity and I'm taking a look at that now, but the snapshots are building
> fine.
>
> 4) Let's get through this release and then we'll talk about future steps
> once the release is complete.
>
> Sounds like a plan?
> --
> Scott O'Bryan
>
> On October 30, 2013 at 7:59:38 AM, Gerhard Petracek (
> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com <//...@gmail.com>) wrote:
>
> you
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Gerhard and Devs,
The problem is there was some 2.1 stuff added to the ExternalContext I believe. At any rate, I agree with you and I've managed to free up some free time to get a release. So here is what I suggest:
1) I'm going to begin the release of the Trinidad plugins. With voting this should give us a couple of days to get the main trinidad 2.1 release where we want it.
2) I'm hearing concerns about some of the functionality, so while the Trinidad Plugin release is underway, let's try and figure out which uncomiited community patches are out there and should make this release. Getting help from you guys on which bugs are important would be a huge help because there is a lot in our bug queue and it would take me a long time to sort everything out.
3) I've already fixed Gerhard's issue he raised below. You're 100% right, this shouldn't have happened. There is a slight build with the Jenkins sanity and I'm taking a look at that now, but the snapshots are building fine.
4) Let's get through this release and then we'll talk about future steps once the release is complete.
Sounds like a plan?
--
Scott O'Bryan
On October 30, 2013 at 7:59:38 AM, Gerhard Petracek (gerhard.petracek@gmail.com) wrote:
you
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
hi scott,
yes - that isn't a big issue (even though the reason for it is quite
questionable, if you consider the changes in jsf 2.1).
however, i'm more concerned about the implication of the topics i mentioned
earlier.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2013/10/30 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
> Hey guys, I understand some of the frustration, but MyFaces 2.1 and
> Trinidad 2.0 is an invalid configuration. Why would a release of Trinidad
> 2.1 (which is designed for JSF 2.1) not solve this issue.
> --
> Scott O'Bryan
> Sent with Airmail <http://airmailapp.com/tracking>
>
> On October 30, 2013 at 1:28:20 AM, Gerhard Petracek (
> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com <//...@gmail.com>) wrote:
>
> hi eduardo,
>
> if so: please file the corresponding jira-ticket/s.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
> JavaEE Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
> 2013/10/30 Contrib <gc...@cibinetonline.com>
>
>> There are some bugfixes on MyFaces 2.1, and projects having Trinidad
>> 2.0 as part of the stack, cannot update it due this.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eduardo
>>
>> El 28/10/13 10:09, Gerhard Petracek escribió:
>>
>> it isn't only about one release.
>> e.g. 2.1.0 was just skipped and at least a part is broken since months
>> (see [1] and [2]).
>> therefore i called this thread "trinidad.next" instead of "trinidad
>> 2.1.1".
>>
>> imo:
>> the current situation isn't acceptable for users.
>> committers who work on trinidad on a regular basis should also do
>> releases on a regular basis.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-2422
>> [2] https://builds.apache.org/job/Trinidad%20Core%20Trunk%20(snapshot)/<https://builds.apache.org/job/Trinidad%20Core%20Trunk%20%28snapshot%29/>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/18 Hazem Saleh <ha...@apache.org>
>>
>>> +1 for a release too.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 17.10.13 22:47, schrieb Gerhard Petracek:
>>>>
>>>> hi @ all,
>>>>>
>>>>> we haven't seen a trinidad release for almost >20 months<.
>>>>> it's known that other projects are based on trinidad and therefore it's
>>>>> obvious that they have to use snapshot versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> imo:
>>>>> since there are commits on a regular basis, there should be also
>>>>> releases on a regular basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>
>>>> +1 for a release
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Werner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hazem Saleh
>>>
>>> Author of JavaScript Unit Testing book:
>>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/1782160620/
>>>
>>> Co-author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets) book:
>>> http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002M052KY
>>>
>>> DeveloperWorks Contributing Author
>>>
>>> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/hazem/entry/ibm_developerworks_contributing_author?lang=en_us
>>>
>>> An Apache committer, IBMer, and a technical speaker
>>>
>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/hazems
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Hey guys, I understand some of the frustration, but MyFaces 2.1 and Trinidad 2.0 is an invalid configuration. Why would a release of Trinidad 2.1 (which is designed for JSF 2.1) not solve this issue.
--
Scott O'Bryan
Sent with Airmail
On October 30, 2013 at 1:28:20 AM, Gerhard Petracek (gerhard.petracek@gmail.com) wrote:
hi eduardo,
if so: please file the corresponding jira-ticket/s.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2013/10/30 Contrib <gc...@cibinetonline.com>
There are some bugfixes on MyFaces 2.1, and projects having Trinidad 2.0 as part of the stack, cannot update it due this.
Regards,
Eduardo
El 28/10/13 10:09, Gerhard Petracek escribió:
it isn't only about one release.
e.g. 2.1.0 was just skipped and at least a part is broken since months (see [1] and [2]).
therefore i called this thread "trinidad.next" instead of "trinidad 2.1.1".
imo:
the current situation isn't acceptable for users.
committers who work on trinidad on a regular basis should also do releases on a regular basis.
regards,
gerhard
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-2422
[2] https://builds.apache.org/job/Trinidad%20Core%20Trunk%20(snapshot)/
2013/10/18 Hazem Saleh <ha...@apache.org>
+1 for a release too.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 17.10.13 22:47, schrieb Gerhard Petracek:
hi @ all,
we haven't seen a trinidad release for almost >20 months<.
it's known that other projects are based on trinidad and therefore it's
obvious that they have to use snapshot versions.
imo:
since there are commits on a regular basis, there should be also
releases on a regular basis.
regards,
gerhard
+1 for a release
Werner
--
Hazem Saleh
Author of JavaScript Unit Testing book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1782160620/
Co-author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets) book:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002M052KY
DeveloperWorks Contributing Author
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/hazem/entry/ibm_developerworks_contributing_author?lang=en_us
An Apache committer, IBMer, and a technical speaker
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/hazems
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
hi eduardo,
if so: please file the corresponding jira-ticket/s.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2013/10/30 Contrib <gc...@cibinetonline.com>
> There are some bugfixes on MyFaces 2.1, and projects having Trinidad 2.0
> as part of the stack, cannot update it due this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eduardo
>
> El 28/10/13 10:09, Gerhard Petracek escribió:
>
> it isn't only about one release.
> e.g. 2.1.0 was just skipped and at least a part is broken since months
> (see [1] and [2]).
> therefore i called this thread "trinidad.next" instead of "trinidad 2.1.1".
>
> imo:
> the current situation isn't acceptable for users.
> committers who work on trinidad on a regular basis should also do releases
> on a regular basis.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-2422
> [2] https://builds.apache.org/job/Trinidad%20Core%20Trunk%20(snapshot)/<https://builds.apache.org/job/Trinidad%20Core%20Trunk%20%28snapshot%29/>
>
>
>
> 2013/10/18 Hazem Saleh <ha...@apache.org>
>
>> +1 for a release too.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Am 17.10.13 22:47, schrieb Gerhard Petracek:
>>>
>>> hi @ all,
>>>>
>>>> we haven't seen a trinidad release for almost >20 months<.
>>>> it's known that other projects are based on trinidad and therefore it's
>>>> obvious that they have to use snapshot versions.
>>>>
>>>> imo:
>>>> since there are commits on a regular basis, there should be also
>>>> releases on a regular basis.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>> +1 for a release
>>>
>>>
>>> Werner
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hazem Saleh
>>
>> Author of JavaScript Unit Testing book:
>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/1782160620/
>>
>> Co-author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets) book:
>> http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002M052KY
>>
>> DeveloperWorks Contributing Author
>>
>> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/hazem/entry/ibm_developerworks_contributing_author?lang=en_us
>>
>> An Apache committer, IBMer, and a technical speaker
>>
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/hazems
>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Contrib <gc...@cibinetonline.com>.
There are some bugfixes on MyFaces 2.1, and projects having Trinidad 2.0
as part of the stack, cannot update it due this.
Regards,
Eduardo
El 28/10/13 10:09, Gerhard Petracek escribió:
> it isn't only about one release.
> e.g. 2.1.0 was just skipped and at least a part is broken since months
> (see [1] and [2]).
> therefore i called this thread "trinidad.next" instead of "trinidad
> 2.1.1".
>
> imo:
> the current situation isn't acceptable for users.
> committers who work on trinidad on a regular basis should also do
> releases on a regular basis.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-2422
> [2]
> https://builds.apache.org/job/Trinidad%20Core%20Trunk%20(snapshot)/
> <https://builds.apache.org/job/Trinidad%20Core%20Trunk%20%28snapshot%29/>
>
>
>
> 2013/10/18 Hazem Saleh <hazems@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>
> +1 for a release too.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Werner Punz
> <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Am 17.10.13 22:47, schrieb Gerhard Petracek:
>
> hi @ all,
>
> we haven't seen a trinidad release for almost >20 months<.
> it's known that other projects are based on trinidad and
> therefore it's
> obvious that they have to use snapshot versions.
>
> imo:
> since there are commits on a regular basis, there should
> be also
> releases on a regular basis.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> +1 for a release
>
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Hazem Saleh
>
> Author of JavaScript Unit Testing book:
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/1782160620/
>
> Co-author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets)
> book:
> http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002M052KY
>
> DeveloperWorks Contributing Author
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/hazem/entry/ibm_developerworks_contributing_author?lang=en_us
>
> An Apache committer, IBMer, and a technical speaker
>
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/hazems
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>.
it isn't only about one release.
e.g. 2.1.0 was just skipped and at least a part is broken since months (see
[1] and [2]).
therefore i called this thread "trinidad.next" instead of "trinidad 2.1.1".
imo:
the current situation isn't acceptable for users.
committers who work on trinidad on a regular basis should also do releases
on a regular basis.
regards,
gerhard
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-2422
[2] https://builds.apache.org/job/Trinidad%20Core%20Trunk%20(snapshot)/
2013/10/18 Hazem Saleh <ha...@apache.org>
> +1 for a release too.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Am 17.10.13 22:47, schrieb Gerhard Petracek:
>>
>> hi @ all,
>>>
>>> we haven't seen a trinidad release for almost >20 months<.
>>> it's known that other projects are based on trinidad and therefore it's
>>> obvious that they have to use snapshot versions.
>>>
>>> imo:
>>> since there are commits on a regular basis, there should be also
>>> releases on a regular basis.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>> +1 for a release
>>
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Hazem Saleh
>
> Author of JavaScript Unit Testing book:
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/1782160620/
>
> Co-author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets) book:
> http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002M052KY
>
> DeveloperWorks Contributing Author
>
> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/hazem/entry/ibm_developerworks_contributing_author?lang=en_us
>
> An Apache committer, IBMer, and a technical speaker
>
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/hazems
>
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Hazem Saleh <ha...@apache.org>.
+1 for a release too.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 17.10.13 22:47, schrieb Gerhard Petracek:
>
> hi @ all,
>>
>> we haven't seen a trinidad release for almost >20 months<.
>> it's known that other projects are based on trinidad and therefore it's
>> obvious that they have to use snapshot versions.
>>
>> imo:
>> since there are commits on a regular basis, there should be also
>> releases on a regular basis.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
> +1 for a release
>
>
> Werner
>
>
>
--
Hazem Saleh
Author of JavaScript Unit Testing book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1782160620/
Co-author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets) book:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002M052KY
DeveloperWorks Contributing Author
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/hazem/entry/ibm_developerworks_contributing_author?lang=en_us
An Apache committer, IBMer, and a technical speaker
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/hazems
Re: [DISCUSS] trinidad.next
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Am 17.10.13 22:47, schrieb Gerhard Petracek:
> hi @ all,
>
> we haven't seen a trinidad release for almost >20 months<.
> it's known that other projects are based on trinidad and therefore it's
> obvious that they have to use snapshot versions.
>
> imo:
> since there are commits on a regular basis, there should be also
> releases on a regular basis.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
+1 for a release
Werner