You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> on 2008/11/11 12:00:11 UTC
[VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Hi,
I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of Apache
MyFaces Tomahawk out.
Release notes can be found at [4].
Please note that this vote concerns all of the following parts:
1. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk" v2.0.9
2. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk" v1.1.8 [1]
The artifacts are deployed to my private Apache account ([1]).
There is also binary and source packages available on [2]
Please take a look at the "1.1.8" artifacts and vote!
Please note: This vote is "majority approval" with a minimum of three
+1 votes (see [3]).
------------------------------------------------
[ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released,
and why..............
------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Leonardo Uribe
[1] http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118
[2] http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118binsrc
[3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
[4]
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310272&styleName=Html&version=12313507
Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Posted by Hazem Saleh <ha...@apache.org>.
+1.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of Apache
> MyFaces Tomahawk out.
>
> Release notes can be found at [4].
>
> Please note that this vote concerns all of the following parts:
> 1. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk" v2.0.9
> 2. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk" v1.1.8 [1]
>
> The artifacts are deployed to my private Apache account ([1]).
>
> There is also binary and source packages available on [2]
>
> Please take a look at the "1.1.8" artifacts and vote!
>
> Please note: This vote is "majority approval" with a minimum of three
> +1 votes (see [3]).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released,
> and why..............
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks,
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> [1] http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> [2] http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118binsrc<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118binsrc>
> [3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
> [4]
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310272&styleName=Html&version=12313507
>
--
Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
Author of (The Definitive Guide to Apache MyFaces and Facelets):
http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Guide-Apache-MyFaces-Facelets/dp/1590597370
Web blog: http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog
[Web 2.0] Google Maps Integration with JSF:
http://code.google.com/p/gmaps4jsf/
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=51250
Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have updated the artifacts, so the correct NOTICE is available.
>
> regards
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> +1 if the NOTICE is fixed
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > +1 if the NOTICE is fixed.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com
>> >> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching
>> >> > <skitching@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>> >> > > Hi,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of
>> >> > Apache
>> >> > > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
>> >> >
>> >> > Some initial test results:
>> >> >
>> >> > The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets +
>> >> > Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6.
>> >> >
>> >> > For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
>> >> > http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
>> >> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
>> >> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
>> >> > The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
>> >> > Checksums all look ok.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but
>> the
>> >> > standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has
>> a
>> >> > lot more
>> >> > credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could
>> >> > be wrong...
>> >> >
>> >> > And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which
>> >> > should
>> >> > probably be updated.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all.
>> >> > I'll take a look.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources.
>> >> > This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright
>> >> > 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question
>> >> > about optional dependency to commons is solved.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
>> >> >
>> >> > <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
>> >> > in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
>> >> > uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
>> >> > in our pom as runtime dependency -->
>> >> > <dependency>
>> >> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
>> >> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
>> >> > <version>1.3.2</version>
>> >> > <scope>runtime</scope>
>> >> > </dependency>
>> >> >
>> >> > I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if
>> >> > someone
>> >> > wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then
>> >> > why should
>> >> > we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2,
>> >> > this library was marked as optional. From other point of view if
>> >> > someone does not want commons-io to be included in their
>> classpath
>> >> > he/she can exclude it. Good question. In my opinion one or other
>> >> > it is the same (read it as +0 taking the + to let it as is), but
>> I
>> >> > prefer add to the classpath by default because if not, every user
>> >> > of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It could
>> be
>> >> > good to have a community point of view about it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io
>> >> > dependency:
>> >> >
>> >> > <dependency>
>> >> > <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId>
>> >> > <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
>> >> >
>> >> > <version>1.1.8</version>
>> >> > <exclusions>
>> >> > <exclusion>
>> >> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
>> >> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
>> >> > </exclusion>
>> >> > </exclusions>
>> >> >
>> >> > </dependency>
>> >> >
>> >> > In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io
>> >> > (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as
>> >> > dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7.So
>> >> no objection from me on the commons-io dependency.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards, Simon
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
>> >> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Grant Smith
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi
I have updated the artifacts, so the correct NOTICE is available.
regards
Leonardo Uribe
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>wrote:
> +1 if the NOTICE is fixed
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 if the NOTICE is fixed.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com
> >> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching
> >> > <skitching@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of
> >> > Apache
> >> > > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
> >> >
> >> > Some initial test results:
> >> >
> >> > The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets +
> >> > Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6.
> >> >
> >> > For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
> >> > http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> >> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> >> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> >> > The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
> >> > Checksums all look ok.
> >> >
> >> > Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but
> the
> >> > standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a
> >> > lot more
> >> > credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could
> >> > be wrong...
> >> >
> >> > And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which
> >> > should
> >> > probably be updated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all.
> >> > I'll take a look.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources.
> >> > This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright
> >> > 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question
> >> > about optional dependency to commons is solved.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
> >> >
> >> > <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
> >> > in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
> >> > uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
> >> > in our pom as runtime dependency -->
> >> > <dependency>
> >> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
> >> > <version>1.3.2</version>
> >> > <scope>runtime</scope>
> >> > </dependency>
> >> >
> >> > I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if
> >> > someone
> >> > wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then
> >> > why should
> >> > we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2,
> >> > this library was marked as optional. From other point of view if
> >> > someone does not want commons-io to be included in their classpath
> >> > he/she can exclude it. Good question. In my opinion one or other
> >> > it is the same (read it as +0 taking the + to let it as is), but I
> >> > prefer add to the classpath by default because if not, every user
> >> > of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It could be
> >> > good to have a community point of view about it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io
> >> > dependency:
> >> >
> >> > <dependency>
> >> > <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
> >> >
> >> > <version>1.1.8</version>
> >> > <exclusions>
> >> > <exclusion>
> >> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
> >> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
> >> > </exclusion>
> >> > </exclusions>
> >> >
> >> > </dependency>
> >> >
> >> > In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io
> >> > (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as
> >> > dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
> >>
> >> Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7. So
> >> no objection from me on the commons-io dependency.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards, Simon
> >>
> >> --
> >> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
> >> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Grant Smith
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
+1 if the NOTICE is fixed
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 if the NOTICE is fixed.
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching
>> > <skitching@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of
>> > Apache
>> > > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
>> >
>> > Some initial test results:
>> >
>> > The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets +
>> > Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6.
>> >
>> > For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
>> > http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118
>> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
>> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
>> > The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
>> > Checksums all look ok.
>> >
>> > Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but the
>> > standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a
>> > lot more
>> > credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could
>> > be wrong...
>> >
>> > And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which
>> > should
>> > probably be updated.
>> >
>> >
>> > That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all.
>> > I'll take a look.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources.
>> > This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright
>> > 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question
>> > about optional dependency to commons is solved.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
>> >
>> > <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
>> > in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
>> > uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
>> > in our pom as runtime dependency -->
>> > <dependency>
>> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
>> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
>> > <version>1.3.2</version>
>> > <scope>runtime</scope>
>> > </dependency>
>> >
>> > I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if
>> > someone
>> > wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then
>> > why should
>> > we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
>> >
>> >
>> > This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2,
>> > this library was marked as optional. From other point of view if
>> > someone does not want commons-io to be included in their classpath
>> > he/she can exclude it. Good question. In my opinion one or other
>> > it is the same (read it as +0 taking the + to let it as is), but I
>> > prefer add to the classpath by default because if not, every user
>> > of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It could be
>> > good to have a community point of view about it.
>> >
>> >
>> > In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io
>> > dependency:
>> >
>> > <dependency>
>> > <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId>
>> > <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
>> >
>> > <version>1.1.8</version>
>> > <exclusions>
>> > <exclusion>
>> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
>> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
>> > </exclusion>
>> > </exclusions>
>> >
>> > </dependency>
>> >
>> > In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io
>> > (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as
>> > dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
>>
>> Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7. So
>> no objection from me on the commons-io dependency.
>>
>>
>> Regards, Simon
>>
>> --
>> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
>> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Grant Smith
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Posted by Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com>.
+1 if the NOTICE is fixed.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>wrote:
> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching
> > <skitching@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of
> > Apache
> > > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
> >
> > Some initial test results:
> >
> > The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets +
> > Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6.
> >
> > For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
> > http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> > The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
> > Checksums all look ok.
> >
> > Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but the
> > standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a
> > lot more
> > credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could
> > be wrong...
> >
> > And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which
> > should
> > probably be updated.
> >
> >
> > That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all.
> > I'll take a look.
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources.
> > This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright
> > 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question
> > about optional dependency to commons is solved.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
> >
> > <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
> > in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
> > uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
> > in our pom as runtime dependency -->
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
> > <version>1.3.2</version>
> > <scope>runtime</scope>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if
> > someone
> > wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then
> > why should
> > we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
> >
> >
> > This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2,
> > this library was marked as optional. From other point of view if
> > someone does not want commons-io to be included in their classpath
> > he/she can exclude it. Good question. In my opinion one or other
> > it is the same (read it as +0 taking the + to let it as is), but I
> > prefer add to the classpath by default because if not, every user
> > of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It could be
> > good to have a community point of view about it.
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io
> > dependency:
> >
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId>
> > <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
> >
> > <version>1.1.8</version>
> > <exclusions>
> > <exclusion>
> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
> > </exclusion>
> > </exclusions>
> >
> > </dependency>
> >
> > In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io
> > (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as
> > dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
>
> Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7. So
> no objection from me on the commons-io dependency.
>
>
> Regards, Simon
>
> --
> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
>
>
--
Grant Smith
Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching
> <skitching@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of
> Apache
> > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
>
> Some initial test results:
>
> The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets +
> Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6.
>
> For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
> http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
> Checksums all look ok.
>
> Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but the
> standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a
> lot more
> credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could
> be wrong...
>
> And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which
> should
> probably be updated.
>
>
> That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all.
> I'll take a look.
>
>
>
> The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources.
> This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright
> 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question
> about optional dependency to commons is solved.
>
>
>
>
> I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
>
> <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
> in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
> uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
> in our pom as runtime dependency -->
> <dependency>
> <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
> <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
> <version>1.3.2</version>
> <scope>runtime</scope>
> </dependency>
>
> I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if
> someone
> wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then
> why should
> we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
>
>
> This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2,
> this library was marked as optional. From other point of view if
> someone does not want commons-io to be included in their classpath
> he/she can exclude it. Good question. In my opinion one or other
> it is the same (read it as +0 taking the + to let it as is), but I
> prefer add to the classpath by default because if not, every user
> of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It could be
> good to have a community point of view about it.
>
>
> In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io
> dependency:
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId>
> <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
>
> <version>1.1.8</version>
> <exclusions>
> <exclusion>
> <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
> <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
> </exclusion>
> </exclusions>
>
> </dependency>
>
> In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io
> (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as
> dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7. So
no objection from me on the commons-io dependency.
Regards, Simon
--
-- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
-- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of Apache
>> > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
>>
>> Some initial test results:
>>
>> The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets + Mojarra1.2.0_09 +
>> java1.6.
>>
>> For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
>> The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
>> Checksums all look ok.
>>
>> Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but the
>> standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a lot more
>> credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could be wrong...
>>
>> And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which should
>> probably be updated.
>>
>>
> That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all. I'll take a
> look.
>
>
The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources. This was
fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright 2004-2008". The new
artifacts will be generated after the question about optional dependency to
commons is solved.
>
>> I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
>>
>> <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
>> in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
>> uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
>> in our pom as runtime dependency -->
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
>> <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
>> <version>1.3.2</version>
>> <scope>runtime</scope>
>> </dependency>
>>
>> I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if someone
>> wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then why should
>> we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
>>
>
> This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2, this
> library was marked as optional. From other point of view if someone does not
> want commons-io to be included in their classpath he/she can exclude it.
> Good question. In my opinion one or other it is the same (read it as +0
> taking the + to let it as is), but I prefer add to the classpath by default
> because if not, every user of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by
> hand. It could be good to have a community point of view about it.
>
In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io dependency:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId>
<artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
<version>1.1.8</version>
<exclusions>
<exclusion>
<groupId>commons-io</groupId>
<artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
</exclusion>
</exclusions>
</dependency>
In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io
(requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as dependency if
the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
>
> regards
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>>
>> --
>> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
>> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>wrote:
> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of Apache
> > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
>
> Some initial test results:
>
> The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets + Mojarra1.2.0_09 +
> java1.6.
>
> For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
> http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
> Checksums all look ok.
>
> Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but the
> standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a lot more
> credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could be wrong...
>
> And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which should
> probably be updated.
>
>
That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all. I'll take a
look.
>
> I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
>
> <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
> in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
> uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
> in our pom as runtime dependency -->
> <dependency>
> <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
> <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
> <version>1.3.2</version>
> <scope>runtime</scope>
> </dependency>
>
> I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if someone
> wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then why should
> we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
>
This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2, this library
was marked as optional. From other point of view if someone does not want
commons-io to be included in their classpath he/she can exclude it. Good
question. In my opinion one or other it is the same (read it as +0 taking
the + to let it as is), but I prefer add to the classpath by default because
if not, every user of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It
could be good to have a community point of view about it.
regards
Leonardo Uribe
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> --
> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
>
>
Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of Apache
> MyFaces Tomahawk out.
Some initial test results:
The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets + Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6.
For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118
<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
Checksums all look ok.
Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but the
standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a lot more
credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could be wrong...
And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which should
probably be updated.
I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
<!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
in our pom as runtime dependency -->
<dependency>
<groupId>commons-io</groupId>
<artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
<version>1.3.2</version>
<scope>runtime</scope>
</dependency>
I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if someone
wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then why should
we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
Regards,
Simon
--
-- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
-- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)