You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com> on 2008/11/27 00:54:41 UTC

[JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Hi all,

We're reaching the point of integrating Facelets to the core 2.0 branch and
we need to determine what kind of package structure we'll be using.My first
thought would be to concentrate core Facelets classes in
org.apache.myfaces.application.facelets and place the tag classes in
org.apache.myfaces.taglib.facelets.core/html/* and move jsp specific tags
from org.apache.myfaces.taglib.* to org.apache.myfaces.taglib.jsp.*

Is there any better suggestion for this?


Thanks,

~ Simon

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
<ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
> community, instead of only using MyFaces...
>
> I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
> for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
>
> Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things.
> I'm sure there are things to improve.

I saw that. Thanks for the patches.
I think Simon or Werner will apply them to the 2.0 version
of myfaces

>
> Regards,
>
> Jan-Kees
>
> @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.

sure, it is!

>
>
> 2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
>> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every change. You'll
>>> find that most new classes and methods are already there though, but some
>>> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>>
>> it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> ~ Simon
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new API classes?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those
>>>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> /Jan-Kees
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>:
>>>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>>>> >
>>>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within myfaces-api.jar
>>>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, but with
>>>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. However I must
>>>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> >
>>>> > ~ Simon
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>> > <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi all,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces javax.faces
>>>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this
>>>> >> cause
>>>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the
>>>> >> spec?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are
>>>> >> missing.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to be
>>>> >> done by hand.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Regards,
>>>> >> Jan-Kees
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some
>>>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although
>>>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree population
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to
>>>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our
>>>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented,
>>>> >>> much
>>>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own
>>>> >>> code and
>>>> >>> so on.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the
>>>> >>> amount
>>>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug
>>>> >>> fixes
>>>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Regards,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> ~ Simon
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my
>>>> >>>> knowledge
>>>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>>>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close
>>>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages
>>>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
>>>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
>>>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI
>>>> >>>> and
>>>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Werner
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>.
Well, to get rid of all confusion, this is what I did.

I downloaded the spec to know what should be implemented.

After that, I scanned the JavaDocs for changes and held them next to
the MyFaces codebase (working from top to bottom). Where I found a
change, I looked at the JavaDocs for the methods and constants etc and
implemented those. Since I thought the JavaDoc is part of the spec and
thus part of the interface contract of the framework, I used that one.

But if you guys want to, I can remove the existing JavaDocs and
recreate my own, but since we implement the same spec, they will
probably have a great overlap...

/Jan-Kees

2008/12/2 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Gerhard:
>>
>> I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
>> JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
>> official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
>> looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the
>> JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra
>> sources, making them... equal... :)
>
> I haven't looked at a patch yes, but even taking "only" the javadoc is
> not correct.
> The javadoc comments is part of their code and licensed under the wrong license.
>
> Or were you just using the "order" of the methods ?
>
> -M
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jan-Kees
>>
>>
>> 2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0 is now
>>> available at:
>>>
>>> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek
>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> hello jan-kees,
>>>>
>>>> first of all: thank you for your contributions!
>>>>
>>>> i had a quick look at some of your patches.
>>>> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc [1]
>>>>
>>>> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the
>>>> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc comments are
>>>> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
>>>> there are also classes with slight variations.
>>>>
>>>> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used by
>>>> mojarra (cddl and gpl).
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
>>>> [3]
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which
>>>>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
>>>>> So we might be able to share the work.
>>>>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
>>>>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this
>>>>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Werner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them
>>>>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~ Simon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>>>> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
>>>>>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
>>>>>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things.
>>>>>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Jan-Kees
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>>>>>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
>>>>>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
>>>>>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>     >> Hi,
>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every
>>>>>>    change. You'll
>>>>>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there though,
>>>>>>    but some
>>>>>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>     > -Matthias
>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>     >> Regards,
>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>     >> ~ Simon
>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>>>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new
>>>>>>    API classes?
>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all
>>>>>> those
>>>>>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
>>>>>>    myfaces-api.jar
>>>>>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's,
>>>>>>    but with
>>>>>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base.
>>>>>>    However I must
>>>>>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>>     >>> > Regards,
>>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>>     >>> > ~ Simon
>>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>>>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>>>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>>     >>> >> Hi all,
>>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces
>>>>>>    javax.faces
>>>>>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or
>>>>>>    does this
>>>>>>     >>> >> cause
>>>>>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand,
>>>>>>    based on the
>>>>>>     >>> >> spec?
>>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
>>>>>>    package are
>>>>>>     >>> >> missing.
>>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it
>>>>>>    needs to be
>>>>>>     >>> >> done by hand.
>>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>>     >>> >> Regards,
>>>>>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
>>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There
>>>>>>    are some
>>>>>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF
>>>>>>    2.0. Although
>>>>>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see
>>>>>>    pdl) and
>>>>>>     >>> >>> the
>>>>>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree
>>>>>>    population
>>>>>>     >>> >>> that
>>>>>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as
>>>>>>    it's going to
>>>>>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
>>>>>>    Facelets and our
>>>>>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first
>>>>>>    implemented,
>>>>>>     >>> >>> much
>>>>>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve
>>>>>>    their own
>>>>>>     >>> >>> code and
>>>>>>     >>> >>> so on.
>>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should
>>>>>>    limit the
>>>>>>     >>> >>> amount
>>>>>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates
>>>>>>    and bug
>>>>>>     >>> >>> fixes
>>>>>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>> Regards,
>>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
>>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
>>>>>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>>>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from
>>>>>>    scratch?
>>>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to
>>>>>> my
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
>>>>>>    compatibility close
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change
>>>>>>    the packages
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared
>>>>>> codebase.
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues
>>>>>>    between the RI
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> and
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>> Werner
>>>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>     >>
>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>     > --
>>>>>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>>
>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>>>> Courses in English and German
>>>>
>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jan-Kees,

Yes, it sounds good.

~ Simon

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
jankeesvanandel@gmail.com> wrote:

> You know what? Just to be on the safe side, I can remove the JavaDocs
> and create some new patches without any. I delete the other patches
> that might be dangerous.
>
> That way, there should be no problems. As a short term solution, we
> can just link to the official JavaDocs until we have our own...
>
> Sounds good?
>
> /Jan-Kees
>
>
> 2008/12/2 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>:
> > Ok, good, because I have one teammate doing specifically that (which is,
> > happily for me, not myself).
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Simon Lessard <
> simon.lessard.3@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly from Mojarra is wrong, but
> >> > recreating it with the same result is permitted right?
> >>
> >> yes.
> >> I think we had that discussion already in the past.
> >> I think Grant did some volunteering in fixing JavaDoc.
> >>
> >> -M
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <
> matzew@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >> >> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi Gerhard:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
> >> >> > JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
> >> >> > official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
> >> >> > looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that
> the
> >> >> > JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra
> >> >> > sources, making them... equal... :)
> >> >>
> >> >> I haven't looked at a patch yes, but even taking "only" the javadoc
> is
> >> >> not correct.
> >> >> The javadoc comments is part of their code and licensed under the
> wrong
> >> >> license.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or were you just using the "order" of the methods ?
> >> >>
> >> >> -M
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards,
> >> >> > Jan-Kees
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >> Hi
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf
> 2.0
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> now
> >> >> >> available at:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> regards
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Leonardo Uribe
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek
> >> >> >> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> hello jan-kees,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> first of all: thank you for your contributions!
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> i had a quick look at some of your patches.
> >> >> >>> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the
> >> >> >>> javadoc
> >> >> >>> [1]
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of
> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >>> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc
> >> >> >>> comments
> >> >> >>> are
> >> >> >>> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
> >> >> >>> there are also classes with slight variations.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses
> >> >> >>> used
> >> >> >>> by
> >> >> >>> mojarra (cddl and gpl).
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> regards,
> >> >> >>> gerhard
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> [1]
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
> >> >> >>> [2]
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
> >> >> >>> [3]
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday
> >> >> >>>> which
> >> >> >>>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
> >> >> >>>> So we might be able to share the work.
> >> >> >>>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
> >> >> >>>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having
> >> >> >>>> this
> >> >> >>>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-)
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Werner
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them
> >> >> >>>>> in/comment
> >> >> >>>>> them
> >> >> >>>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Regards,
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> ~ Simon
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >> >> >>>>> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to
> the
> >> >> >>>>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a
> Jira
> >> >> >>>>> ticket
> >> >> >>>>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes
> together).
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do
> >> >> >>>>> things.
> >> >> >>>>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>    Regards,
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>    Jan-Kees
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
> >> >> >>>>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
> >> >> >>>>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
> >> >> >>>>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
> >> >> >>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>     >> Hi,
> >> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for
> >> >> >>>>> every
> >> >> >>>>>    change. You'll
> >> >> >>>>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there
> >> >> >>>>> though,
> >> >> >>>>>    but some
> >> >> >>>>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
> >> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >> >>>>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
> >> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >> >>>>>     > -Matthias
> >> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >> Regards,
> >> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >> ~ Simon
> >> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >> >> >>>>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
> >> >> >>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >> >>>>>    wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing
> those
> >> >> >>>>> new
> >> >> >>>>>    API classes?
> >> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in
> implementing
> >> >> >>>>> all
> >> >> >>>>> those
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
> >> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
> >> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
> >> >> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8
> within
> >> >> >>>>>    myfaces-api.jar
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as
> >> >> >>>>> Mojarra's,
> >> >> >>>>>    but with
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance
> >> >> >>>>> base.
> >> >> >>>>>    However I must
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> > Regards,
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> > ~ Simon
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
> >> >> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> Hi all,
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the
> >> >> >>>>> MyFaces
> >> >> >>>>>    javax.faces
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from
> >> >> >>>>> Mojarra?
> >> >> >>>>> Or
> >> >> >>>>>    does this
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> cause
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by
> >> >> >>>>> hand,
> >> >> >>>>>    based on the
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> spec?
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the
> pdl.facelets
> >> >> >>>>>    package are
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> missing.
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to
> myfaces2
> >> >> >>>>> if
> >> >> >>>>> it
> >> >> >>>>>    needs to be
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> done by hand.
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> Regards,
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
> >> >> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be
> enough.
> >> >> >>>>> There
> >> >> >>>>>    are some
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets
> in
> >> >> >>>>> JSF
> >> >> >>>>>    2.0. Although
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were
> added
> >> >> >>>>> (see
> >> >> >>>>>    pdl) and
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> the
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing
> full
> >> >> >>>>> tree
> >> >> >>>>>    population
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> that
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the
> code
> >> >> >>>>> as
> >> >> >>>>>    it's going to
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between
> Mojarra's
> >> >> >>>>>    Facelets and our
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was
> >> >> >>>>> first
> >> >> >>>>>    implemented,
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> much
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to
> >> >> >>>>> improve
> >> >> >>>>>    their own
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> code and
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> so on.
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we
> >> >> >>>>> should
> >> >> >>>>>    limit the
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> amount
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets
> >> >> >>>>> updates
> >> >> >>>>>    and bug
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> fixes
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide
> >> >> >>>>> to
> >> >> >>>>> that.
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> Regards,
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
> >> >> >>>>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets
> >> >> >>>>> from
> >> >> >>>>>    scratch?
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase,
> >> >> >>>>> but
> >> >> >>>>> to
> >> >> >>>>> my
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
> >> >> >>>>>    compatibility close
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont
> >> >> >>>>> change
> >> >> >>>>>    the packages
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a
> shared
> >> >> >>>>> codebase.
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full
> >> >> >>>>> reimplementation
> >> >> >>>>> or
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political
> >> >> >>>>> issues
> >> >> >>>>>    between the RI
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> and
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent
> >> >> >>>>> relationship!
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Werner
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >> >>>>>     > --
> >> >> >>>>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
> >> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >> >>>>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >> >> >>>>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >> >> >>>>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> --
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> http://www.irian.at
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> >> >> >>> JSF Consulting, Development and
> >> >> >>> Courses in English and German
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Matthias Wessendorf
> >> >>
> >> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >> >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matthias Wessendorf
> >>
> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >
> >
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>.
You know what? Just to be on the safe side, I can remove the JavaDocs
and create some new patches without any. I delete the other patches
that might be dangerous.

That way, there should be no problems. As a short term solution, we
can just link to the official JavaDocs until we have our own...

Sounds good?

/Jan-Kees


2008/12/2 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>:
> Ok, good, because I have one teammate doing specifically that (which is,
> happily for me, not myself).
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly from Mojarra is wrong, but
>> > recreating it with the same result is permitted right?
>>
>> yes.
>> I think we had that discussion already in the past.
>> I think Grant did some volunteering in fixing JavaDoc.
>>
>> -M
>>
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> >> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Gerhard:
>> >> >
>> >> > I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
>> >> > JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
>> >> > official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
>> >> > looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the
>> >> > JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra
>> >> > sources, making them... equal... :)
>> >>
>> >> I haven't looked at a patch yes, but even taking "only" the javadoc is
>> >> not correct.
>> >> The javadoc comments is part of their code and licensed under the wrong
>> >> license.
>> >>
>> >> Or were you just using the "order" of the methods ?
>> >>
>> >> -M
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Jan-Kees
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> Hi
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> now
>> >> >> available at:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314
>> >> >>
>> >> >> regards
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Leonardo Uribe
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek
>> >> >> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> hello jan-kees,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> first of all: thank you for your contributions!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> i had a quick look at some of your patches.
>> >> >>> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the
>> >> >>> javadoc
>> >> >>> [1]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc
>> >> >>> comments
>> >> >>> are
>> >> >>> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
>> >> >>> there are also classes with slight variations.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses
>> >> >>> used
>> >> >>> by
>> >> >>> mojarra (cddl and gpl).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> regards,
>> >> >>> gerhard
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> [1]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
>> >> >>> [2]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
>> >> >>> [3]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday
>> >> >>>> which
>> >> >>>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
>> >> >>>> So we might be able to share the work.
>> >> >>>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
>> >> >>>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having
>> >> >>>> this
>> >> >>>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Werner
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them
>> >> >>>>> in/comment
>> >> >>>>> them
>> >> >>>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Regards,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> ~ Simon
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> >> >>>>> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >> >>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
>> >> >>>>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira
>> >> >>>>> ticket
>> >> >>>>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do
>> >> >>>>> things.
>> >> >>>>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>    Regards,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>    Jan-Kees
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>> >> >>>>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
>> >> >>>>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
>> >> >>>>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>> >> >>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >> >>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>     >> Hi,
>> >> >>>>>     >>
>> >> >>>>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for
>> >> >>>>> every
>> >> >>>>>    change. You'll
>> >> >>>>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there
>> >> >>>>> though,
>> >> >>>>>    but some
>> >> >>>>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>> >> >>>>>     >
>> >> >>>>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>> >> >>>>>     >
>> >> >>>>>     > -Matthias
>> >> >>>>>     >
>> >> >>>>>     >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>
>> >> >>>>>     >> Regards,
>> >> >>>>>     >>
>> >> >>>>>     >> ~ Simon
>> >> >>>>>     >>
>> >> >>>>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> >> >>>>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>> >> >>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >> >>>>>    wrote:
>> >> >>>>>     >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those
>> >> >>>>> new
>> >> >>>>>    API classes?
>> >> >>>>>     >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing
>> >> >>>>> all
>> >> >>>>> those
>> >> >>>>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>> >> >>>>>     >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
>> >> >>>>>     >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>> >> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>> >> >>>>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >> >>>>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
>> >> >>>>>    myfaces-api.jar
>> >> >>>>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as
>> >> >>>>> Mojarra's,
>> >> >>>>>    but with
>> >> >>>>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance
>> >> >>>>> base.
>> >> >>>>>    However I must
>> >> >>>>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >> >>>>>     >>> > Regards,
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >> >>>>>     >>> > ~ Simon
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >> >>>>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> >> >>>>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>> >> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> Hi all,
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the
>> >> >>>>> MyFaces
>> >> >>>>>    javax.faces
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from
>> >> >>>>> Mojarra?
>> >> >>>>> Or
>> >> >>>>>    does this
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> cause
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by
>> >> >>>>> hand,
>> >> >>>>>    based on the
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> spec?
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
>> >> >>>>>    package are
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> missing.
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2
>> >> >>>>> if
>> >> >>>>> it
>> >> >>>>>    needs to be
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> done by hand.
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> Regards,
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>> >> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough.
>> >> >>>>> There
>> >> >>>>>    are some
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in
>> >> >>>>> JSF
>> >> >>>>>    2.0. Although
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added
>> >> >>>>> (see
>> >> >>>>>    pdl) and
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> the
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full
>> >> >>>>> tree
>> >> >>>>>    population
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> that
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code
>> >> >>>>> as
>> >> >>>>>    it's going to
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
>> >> >>>>>    Facelets and our
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was
>> >> >>>>> first
>> >> >>>>>    implemented,
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> much
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to
>> >> >>>>> improve
>> >> >>>>>    their own
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> code and
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> so on.
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we
>> >> >>>>> should
>> >> >>>>>    limit the
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> amount
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets
>> >> >>>>> updates
>> >> >>>>>    and bug
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> fixes
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide
>> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >>>>> that.
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> Regards,
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
>> >> >>>>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets
>> >> >>>>> from
>> >> >>>>>    scratch?
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase,
>> >> >>>>> but
>> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >>>>> my
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
>> >> >>>>>    compatibility close
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont
>> >> >>>>> change
>> >> >>>>>    the packages
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared
>> >> >>>>> codebase.
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full
>> >> >>>>> reimplementation
>> >> >>>>> or
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political
>> >> >>>>> issues
>> >> >>>>>    between the RI
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> and
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent
>> >> >>>>> relationship!
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Werner
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >> >>>>>     >>
>> >> >>>>>     >>
>> >> >>>>>     >
>> >> >>>>>     >
>> >> >>>>>     >
>> >> >>>>>     > --
>> >> >>>>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
>> >> >>>>>     >
>> >> >>>>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> >> >>>>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> >> >>>>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> >> >>>>>     >
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> http://www.irian.at
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>> >> >>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>> >> >>> Courses in English and German
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Matthias Wessendorf
>> >>
>> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
Ok, good, because I have one teammate doing specifically that (which is,
happily for me, not myself).

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly from Mojarra is wrong, but
> > recreating it with the same result is permitted right?
>
> yes.
> I think we had that discussion already in the past.
> I think Grant did some volunteering in fixing JavaDoc.
>
> -M
>
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi Gerhard:
> >> >
> >> > I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
> >> > JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
> >> > official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
> >> > looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the
> >> > JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra
> >> > sources, making them... equal... :)
> >>
> >> I haven't looked at a patch yes, but even taking "only" the javadoc is
> >> not correct.
> >> The javadoc comments is part of their code and licensed under the wrong
> >> license.
> >>
> >> Or were you just using the "order" of the methods ?
> >>
> >> -M
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Jan-Kees
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> Hi
> >> >>
> >> >> Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0
> is
> >> >> now
> >> >> available at:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314
> >> >>
> >> >> regards
> >> >>
> >> >> Leonardo Uribe
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek
> >> >> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> hello jan-kees,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> first of all: thank you for your contributions!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> i had a quick look at some of your patches.
> >> >>> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the
> javadoc
> >> >>> [1]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of
> the
> >> >>> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc
> comments
> >> >>> are
> >> >>> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
> >> >>> there are also classes with slight variations.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used
> >> >>> by
> >> >>> mojarra (cddl and gpl).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> regards,
> >> >>> gerhard
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [1]
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
> >> >>> [2]
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
> >> >>> [3]
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which
> >> >>>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
> >> >>>> So we might be able to share the work.
> >> >>>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
> >> >>>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this
> >> >>>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Werner
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them
> in/comment
> >> >>>>> them
> >> >>>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ~ Simon
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >> >>>>> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
> >> >>>>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira
> >> >>>>> ticket
> >> >>>>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do
> >> >>>>> things.
> >> >>>>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>    Regards,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>    Jan-Kees
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
> >> >>>>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
> >> >>>>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
> >> >>>>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com <mailto:
> simon.lessard.3@gmail.com>>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>     >> Hi,
> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >>>>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for
> every
> >> >>>>>    change. You'll
> >> >>>>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there
> >> >>>>> though,
> >> >>>>>    but some
> >> >>>>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >>>>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >>>>>     > -Matthias
> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >>>>>     >> Regards,
> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >>>>>     >> ~ Simon
> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >>>>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >> >>>>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
> >> >>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >>>>>    wrote:
> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those
> >> >>>>> new
> >> >>>>>    API classes?
> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing
> all
> >> >>>>> those
> >> >>>>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
> >> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> >> >>>>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >>>>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
> >> >>>>>    myfaces-api.jar
> >> >>>>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as
> >> >>>>> Mojarra's,
> >> >>>>>    but with
> >> >>>>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base.
> >> >>>>>    However I must
> >> >>>>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >>>>>     >>> > Regards,
> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >>>>>     >>> > ~ Simon
> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >>>>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >> >>>>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
> >> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> Hi all,
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the
> MyFaces
> >> >>>>>    javax.faces
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra?
> >> >>>>> Or
> >> >>>>>    does this
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> cause
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand,
> >> >>>>>    based on the
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> spec?
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
> >> >>>>>    package are
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> missing.
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2
> if
> >> >>>>> it
> >> >>>>>    needs to be
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> done by hand.
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> Regards,
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
> >> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough.
> >> >>>>> There
> >> >>>>>    are some
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in
> JSF
> >> >>>>>    2.0. Although
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added
> >> >>>>> (see
> >> >>>>>    pdl) and
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> the
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full
> >> >>>>> tree
> >> >>>>>    population
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> that
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code
> as
> >> >>>>>    it's going to
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
> >> >>>>>    Facelets and our
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was
> first
> >> >>>>>    implemented,
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> much
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to
> >> >>>>> improve
> >> >>>>>    their own
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> code and
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> so on.
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should
> >> >>>>>    limit the
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> amount
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets
> >> >>>>> updates
> >> >>>>>    and bug
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> fixes
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to
> >> >>>>> that.
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
> >> >>>>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets
> from
> >> >>>>>    scratch?
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase,
> but
> >> >>>>> to
> >> >>>>> my
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
> >> >>>>>    compatibility close
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont
> >> >>>>> change
> >> >>>>>    the packages
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared
> >> >>>>> codebase.
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full
> >> >>>>> reimplementation
> >> >>>>> or
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues
> >> >>>>>    between the RI
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> and
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent
> >> >>>>> relationship!
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Werner
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >>>>>     >>> >
> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >>>>>     >>
> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >>>>>     > --
> >> >>>>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >>>>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >> >>>>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >> >>>>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >> >>>>>     >
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.irian.at
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> >> >>> JSF Consulting, Development and
> >> >>> Courses in English and German
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matthias Wessendorf
> >>
> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly from Mojarra is wrong, but
> recreating it with the same result is permitted right?

yes.
I think we had that discussion already in the past.
I think Grant did some volunteering in fixing JavaDoc.

-M

>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Gerhard:
>> >
>> > I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
>> > JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
>> > official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
>> > looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the
>> > JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra
>> > sources, making them... equal... :)
>>
>> I haven't looked at a patch yes, but even taking "only" the javadoc is
>> not correct.
>> The javadoc comments is part of their code and licensed under the wrong
>> license.
>>
>> Or were you just using the "order" of the methods ?
>>
>> -M
>>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Jan-Kees
>> >
>> >
>> > 2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0 is
>> >> now
>> >> available at:
>> >>
>> >> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314
>> >>
>> >> regards
>> >>
>> >> Leonardo Uribe
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek
>> >> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> hello jan-kees,
>> >>>
>> >>> first of all: thank you for your contributions!
>> >>>
>> >>> i had a quick look at some of your patches.
>> >>> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc
>> >>> [1]
>> >>>
>> >>> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the
>> >>> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc comments
>> >>> are
>> >>> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
>> >>> there are also classes with slight variations.
>> >>>
>> >>> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used
>> >>> by
>> >>> mojarra (cddl and gpl).
>> >>>
>> >>> regards,
>> >>> gerhard
>> >>>
>> >>> [1]
>> >>>
>> >>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
>> >>> [2]
>> >>>
>> >>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
>> >>> [3]
>> >>>
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which
>> >>>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
>> >>>> So we might be able to share the work.
>> >>>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
>> >>>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this
>> >>>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Werner
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment
>> >>>>> them
>> >>>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ~ Simon
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> >>>>> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
>> >>>>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira
>> >>>>> ticket
>> >>>>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do
>> >>>>> things.
>> >>>>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    Regards,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    Jan-Kees
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>> >>>>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
>> >>>>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
>> >>>>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>     >> Hi,
>> >>>>>     >>
>> >>>>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every
>> >>>>>    change. You'll
>> >>>>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there
>> >>>>> though,
>> >>>>>    but some
>> >>>>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>> >>>>>     >
>> >>>>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>> >>>>>     >
>> >>>>>     > -Matthias
>> >>>>>     >
>> >>>>>     >>
>> >>>>>     >>
>> >>>>>     >> Regards,
>> >>>>>     >>
>> >>>>>     >> ~ Simon
>> >>>>>     >>
>> >>>>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> >>>>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>> >>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>>    wrote:
>> >>>>>     >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those
>> >>>>> new
>> >>>>>    API classes?
>> >>>>>     >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all
>> >>>>> those
>> >>>>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>> >>>>>     >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
>> >>>>>     >>>
>> >>>>>     >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>> >>>>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >>>>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
>> >>>>>    myfaces-api.jar
>> >>>>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as
>> >>>>> Mojarra's,
>> >>>>>    but with
>> >>>>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base.
>> >>>>>    However I must
>> >>>>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >>>>>     >>> > Regards,
>> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >>>>>     >>> > ~ Simon
>> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >>>>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> >>>>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >>>>>     >>> >> Hi all,
>> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >>>>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces
>> >>>>>    javax.faces
>> >>>>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra?
>> >>>>> Or
>> >>>>>    does this
>> >>>>>     >>> >> cause
>> >>>>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand,
>> >>>>>    based on the
>> >>>>>     >>> >> spec?
>> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >>>>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
>> >>>>>    package are
>> >>>>>     >>> >> missing.
>> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >>>>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if
>> >>>>> it
>> >>>>>    needs to be
>> >>>>>     >>> >> done by hand.
>> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >>>>>     >>> >> Regards,
>> >>>>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
>> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >>>>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough.
>> >>>>> There
>> >>>>>    are some
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF
>> >>>>>    2.0. Although
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added
>> >>>>> (see
>> >>>>>    pdl) and
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> the
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full
>> >>>>> tree
>> >>>>>    population
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> that
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as
>> >>>>>    it's going to
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
>> >>>>>    Facelets and our
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first
>> >>>>>    implemented,
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> much
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to
>> >>>>> improve
>> >>>>>    their own
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> code and
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> so on.
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should
>> >>>>>    limit the
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> amount
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets
>> >>>>> updates
>> >>>>>    and bug
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> fixes
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to
>> >>>>> that.
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> Regards,
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
>> >>>>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from
>> >>>>>    scratch?
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> my
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
>> >>>>>    compatibility close
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont
>> >>>>> change
>> >>>>>    the packages
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared
>> >>>>> codebase.
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full
>> >>>>> reimplementation
>> >>>>> or
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues
>> >>>>>    between the RI
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> and
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent
>> >>>>> relationship!
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Werner
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>>
>> >>>>>     >>> >>
>> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >>>>>     >>> >
>> >>>>>     >>
>> >>>>>     >>
>> >>>>>     >
>> >>>>>     >
>> >>>>>     >
>> >>>>>     > --
>> >>>>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
>> >>>>>     >
>> >>>>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> >>>>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> >>>>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> >>>>>     >
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.irian.at
>> >>>
>> >>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>> >>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>> >>> Courses in English and German
>> >>>
>> >>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly from Mojarra is wrong, but
recreating it with the same result is permitted right?

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Gerhard:
> >
> > I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
> > JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
> > official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
> > looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the
> > JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra
> > sources, making them... equal... :)
>
> I haven't looked at a patch yes, but even taking "only" the javadoc is
> not correct.
> The javadoc comments is part of their code and licensed under the wrong
> license.
>
> Or were you just using the "order" of the methods ?
>
> -M
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jan-Kees
> >
> >
> > 2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0 is
> now
> >> available at:
> >>
> >> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >> Leonardo Uribe
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek
> >> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> hello jan-kees,
> >>>
> >>> first of all: thank you for your contributions!
> >>>
> >>> i had a quick look at some of your patches.
> >>> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc
> [1]
> >>>
> >>> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the
> >>> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc comments
> are
> >>> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
> >>> there are also classes with slight variations.
> >>>
> >>> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used by
> >>> mojarra (cddl and gpl).
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>> gerhard
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
> >>> [2]
> >>>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
> >>> [3]
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which
> >>>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
> >>>> So we might be able to share the work.
> >>>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
> >>>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this
> >>>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Werner
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment
> them
> >>>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ~ Simon
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >>>>> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
> >>>>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira
> ticket
> >>>>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do
> things.
> >>>>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    Jan-Kees
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
> >>>>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
> >>>>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
> >>>>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>     >> Hi,
> >>>>>     >>
> >>>>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every
> >>>>>    change. You'll
> >>>>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there
> though,
> >>>>>    but some
> >>>>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
> >>>>>     >
> >>>>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
> >>>>>     >
> >>>>>     > -Matthias
> >>>>>     >
> >>>>>     >>
> >>>>>     >>
> >>>>>     >> Regards,
> >>>>>     >>
> >>>>>     >> ~ Simon
> >>>>>     >>
> >>>>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >>>>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <mailto:jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
> >>
> >>>>>    wrote:
> >>>>>     >>>
> >>>>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new
> >>>>>    API classes?
> >>>>>     >>>
> >>>>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all
> >>>>> those
> >>>>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
> >>>>>     >>>
> >>>>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
> >>>>>     >>>
> >>>>>     >>>
> >>>>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
> >>>>>     >>> >
> >>>>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
> >>>>>    myfaces-api.jar
> >>>>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as
> Mojarra's,
> >>>>>    but with
> >>>>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base.
> >>>>>    However I must
> >>>>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
> >>>>>     >>> >
> >>>>>     >>> >
> >>>>>     >>> > Regards,
> >>>>>     >>> >
> >>>>>     >>> > ~ Simon
> >>>>>     >>> >
> >>>>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >>>>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >>>>>     >>> >> Hi all,
> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >>>>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces
> >>>>>    javax.faces
> >>>>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or
> >>>>>    does this
> >>>>>     >>> >> cause
> >>>>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand,
> >>>>>    based on the
> >>>>>     >>> >> spec?
> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >>>>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
> >>>>>    package are
> >>>>>     >>> >> missing.
> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >>>>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if
> it
> >>>>>    needs to be
> >>>>>     >>> >> done by hand.
> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >>>>>     >>> >> Regards,
> >>>>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >>>>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
> >>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough.
> There
> >>>>>    are some
> >>>>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF
> >>>>>    2.0. Although
> >>>>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added
> (see
> >>>>>    pdl) and
> >>>>>     >>> >>> the
> >>>>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full
> tree
> >>>>>    population
> >>>>>     >>> >>> that
> >>>>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as
> >>>>>    it's going to
> >>>>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
> >>>>>    Facelets and our
> >>>>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first
> >>>>>    implemented,
> >>>>>     >>> >>> much
> >>>>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve
> >>>>>    their own
> >>>>>     >>> >>> code and
> >>>>>     >>> >>> so on.
> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should
> >>>>>    limit the
> >>>>>     >>> >>> amount
> >>>>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets
> updates
> >>>>>    and bug
> >>>>>     >>> >>> fixes
> >>>>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to
> that.
> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>> Regards,
> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
> >>>>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from
> >>>>>    scratch?
> >>>>>     >>> >>>>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but
> to
> >>>>> my
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
> >>>>>    compatibility close
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change
> >>>>>    the packages
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared
> >>>>> codebase.
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full
> reimplementation
> >>>>> or
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues
> >>>>>    between the RI
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> and
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent
> relationship!
> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>> Werner
> >>>>>     >>> >>>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>>
> >>>>>     >>> >>
> >>>>>     >>> >
> >>>>>     >>> >
> >>>>>     >>
> >>>>>     >>
> >>>>>     >
> >>>>>     >
> >>>>>     >
> >>>>>     > --
> >>>>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
> >>>>>     >
> >>>>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >>>>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >>>>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >>>>>     >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> http://www.irian.at
> >>>
> >>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> >>> JSF Consulting, Development and
> >>> Courses in English and German
> >>>
> >>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
<ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gerhard:
>
> I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
> JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
> official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
> looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the
> JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra
> sources, making them... equal... :)

I haven't looked at a patch yes, but even taking "only" the javadoc is
not correct.
The javadoc comments is part of their code and licensed under the wrong license.

Or were you just using the "order" of the methods ?

-M

>
> Regards,
> Jan-Kees
>
>
> 2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi
>>
>> Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0 is now
>> available at:
>>
>> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek
>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> hello jan-kees,
>>>
>>> first of all: thank you for your contributions!
>>>
>>> i had a quick look at some of your patches.
>>> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc [1]
>>>
>>> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the
>>> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc comments are
>>> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
>>> there are also classes with slight variations.
>>>
>>> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used by
>>> mojarra (cddl and gpl).
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
>>> [2]
>>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
>>> [3]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which
>>>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
>>>> So we might be able to share the work.
>>>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
>>>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this
>>>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Werner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them
>>>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ Simon
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>>> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
>>>>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
>>>>>
>>>>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
>>>>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
>>>>>
>>>>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things.
>>>>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>    Jan-Kees
>>>>>
>>>>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>>>>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
>>>>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
>>>>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>     >> Hi,
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every
>>>>>    change. You'll
>>>>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there though,
>>>>>    but some
>>>>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > -Matthias
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> Regards,
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> ~ Simon
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new
>>>>>    API classes?
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all
>>>>> those
>>>>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>>>>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
>>>>>    myfaces-api.jar
>>>>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's,
>>>>>    but with
>>>>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base.
>>>>>    However I must
>>>>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>     >>> > Regards,
>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>     >>> > ~ Simon
>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>     >>> >> Hi all,
>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces
>>>>>    javax.faces
>>>>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or
>>>>>    does this
>>>>>     >>> >> cause
>>>>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand,
>>>>>    based on the
>>>>>     >>> >> spec?
>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
>>>>>    package are
>>>>>     >>> >> missing.
>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it
>>>>>    needs to be
>>>>>     >>> >> done by hand.
>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>     >>> >> Regards,
>>>>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There
>>>>>    are some
>>>>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF
>>>>>    2.0. Although
>>>>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see
>>>>>    pdl) and
>>>>>     >>> >>> the
>>>>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree
>>>>>    population
>>>>>     >>> >>> that
>>>>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as
>>>>>    it's going to
>>>>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
>>>>>    Facelets and our
>>>>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first
>>>>>    implemented,
>>>>>     >>> >>> much
>>>>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve
>>>>>    their own
>>>>>     >>> >>> code and
>>>>>     >>> >>> so on.
>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should
>>>>>    limit the
>>>>>     >>> >>> amount
>>>>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates
>>>>>    and bug
>>>>>     >>> >>> fixes
>>>>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>     >>> >>> Regards,
>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
>>>>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>     >>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from
>>>>>    scratch?
>>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to
>>>>> my
>>>>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
>>>>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>>>>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
>>>>>    compatibility close
>>>>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change
>>>>>    the packages
>>>>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared
>>>>> codebase.
>>>>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation
>>>>> or
>>>>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues
>>>>>    between the RI
>>>>>     >>> >>>> and
>>>>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>> Werner
>>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>     >>> >
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >>
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > --
>>>>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>>     >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>
>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>>> Courses in English and German
>>>
>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>
>>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>.
Hi Gerhard:

I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the
JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra
sources, making them... equal... :)

Regards,
Jan-Kees


2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
> Hi
>
> Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0 is now
> available at:
>
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314
>
> regards
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek
> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> hello jan-kees,
>>
>> first of all: thank you for your contributions!
>>
>> i had a quick look at some of your patches.
>> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc [1]
>>
>> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the
>> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc comments are
>> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
>> there are also classes with slight variations.
>>
>> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used by
>> mojarra (cddl and gpl).
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>> [1]
>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
>> [2]
>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
>> [3]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch
>>
>>
>>
>> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which
>>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
>>> So we might be able to share the work.
>>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
>>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this
>>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-)
>>>
>>> Werner
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
>>>>
>>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them
>>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> ~ Simon
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
>>>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
>>>>
>>>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
>>>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
>>>>
>>>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things.
>>>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
>>>>
>>>>    Regards,
>>>>
>>>>    Jan-Kees
>>>>
>>>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>>>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
>>>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
>>>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>     >> Hi,
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every
>>>>    change. You'll
>>>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there though,
>>>>    but some
>>>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>>>>     >
>>>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>>>>     >
>>>>     > -Matthias
>>>>     >
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> Regards,
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> ~ Simon
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>    wrote:
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new
>>>>    API classes?
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all
>>>> those
>>>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>>
>>>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>>>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>>>>     >>> >
>>>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
>>>>    myfaces-api.jar
>>>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's,
>>>>    but with
>>>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base.
>>>>    However I must
>>>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>>>>     >>> >
>>>>     >>> >
>>>>     >>> > Regards,
>>>>     >>> >
>>>>     >>> > ~ Simon
>>>>     >>> >
>>>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>     >>> >> Hi all,
>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces
>>>>    javax.faces
>>>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or
>>>>    does this
>>>>     >>> >> cause
>>>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand,
>>>>    based on the
>>>>     >>> >> spec?
>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
>>>>    package are
>>>>     >>> >> missing.
>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it
>>>>    needs to be
>>>>     >>> >> done by hand.
>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>     >>> >> Regards,
>>>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There
>>>>    are some
>>>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF
>>>>    2.0. Although
>>>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see
>>>>    pdl) and
>>>>     >>> >>> the
>>>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree
>>>>    population
>>>>     >>> >>> that
>>>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as
>>>>    it's going to
>>>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
>>>>    Facelets and our
>>>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first
>>>>    implemented,
>>>>     >>> >>> much
>>>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve
>>>>    their own
>>>>     >>> >>> code and
>>>>     >>> >>> so on.
>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should
>>>>    limit the
>>>>     >>> >>> amount
>>>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates
>>>>    and bug
>>>>     >>> >>> fixes
>>>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>     >>> >>> Regards,
>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
>>>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>     >>> >>> wrote:
>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from
>>>>    scratch?
>>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to
>>>> my
>>>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
>>>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>>>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
>>>>    compatibility close
>>>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change
>>>>    the packages
>>>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared
>>>> codebase.
>>>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation
>>>> or
>>>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues
>>>>    between the RI
>>>>     >>> >>>> and
>>>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>     >>> >>>> Werner
>>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>>     >>> >>>
>>>>     >>> >>
>>>>     >>> >
>>>>     >>> >
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >>
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     > --
>>>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>     >
>>>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>     >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> http://www.irian.at
>>
>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>> Courses in English and German
>>
>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi

Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0 is now
available at:

http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314

regards

Leonardo Uribe

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> wrote:

> hello jan-kees,
>
> first of all: thank you for your contributions!
>
> i had a quick look at some of your patches.
> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc [1]
>
> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the
> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc comments are
> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
> there are also classes with slight variations.
>
> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used by
> mojarra (cddl and gpl).
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1]
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
> [2]
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch
>
>
>
> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>
> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which
>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
>> So we might be able to share the work.
>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this signed
>> not to get into legal trouble ;-)
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi Jan-Kees,
>>>
>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them
>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> ~ Simon
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
>>> jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
>>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
>>>
>>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
>>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
>>>
>>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things.
>>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
>>>
>>>    Regards,
>>>
>>>    Jan-Kees
>>>
>>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
>>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
>>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>     >> Hi,
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every
>>>    change. You'll
>>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there though,
>>>    but some
>>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>>>     >
>>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>>>     >
>>>     > -Matthias
>>>     >
>>>     >>
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Regards,
>>>     >>
>>>     >> ~ Simon
>>>     >>
>>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>    wrote:
>>>     >>>
>>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new
>>>    API classes?
>>>     >>>
>>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all
>>> those
>>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>>>     >>>
>>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
>>>     >>>
>>>     >>>
>>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>>>     >>> >
>>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
>>>    myfaces-api.jar
>>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's,
>>>    but with
>>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base.
>>>    However I must
>>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>>>     >>> >
>>>     >>> >
>>>     >>> > Regards,
>>>     >>> >
>>>     >>> > ~ Simon
>>>     >>> >
>>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>     >>> >>
>>>     >>> >> Hi all,
>>>     >>> >>
>>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces
>>>    javax.faces
>>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or
>>>    does this
>>>     >>> >> cause
>>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand,
>>>    based on the
>>>     >>> >> spec?
>>>     >>> >>
>>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
>>>    package are
>>>     >>> >> missing.
>>>     >>> >>
>>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it
>>>    needs to be
>>>     >>> >> done by hand.
>>>     >>> >>
>>>     >>> >> Regards,
>>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
>>>     >>> >>
>>>     >>> >>
>>>     >>> >>
>>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>
>>>     >>> >>>
>>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There
>>>    are some
>>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF
>>>    2.0. Although
>>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see
>>>    pdl) and
>>>     >>> >>> the
>>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree
>>>    population
>>>     >>> >>> that
>>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>>>     >>> >>>
>>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as
>>>    it's going to
>>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
>>>    Facelets and our
>>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first
>>>    implemented,
>>>     >>> >>> much
>>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve
>>>    their own
>>>     >>> >>> code and
>>>     >>> >>> so on.
>>>     >>> >>>
>>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should
>>>    limit the
>>>     >>> >>> amount
>>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates
>>>    and bug
>>>     >>> >>> fixes
>>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>>>     >>> >>>
>>>     >>> >>>
>>>     >>> >>> Regards,
>>>     >>> >>>
>>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
>>>     >>> >>>
>>>     >>> >>>
>>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
>>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>     >>> >>> wrote:
>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from
>>>    scratch?
>>>     >>> >>>>>
>>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my
>>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
>>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
>>>    compatibility close
>>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change
>>>    the packages
>>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared
>>> codebase.
>>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
>>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues
>>>    between the RI
>>>     >>> >>>> and
>>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>     >>> >>>> Werner
>>>     >>> >>>>
>>>     >>> >>>
>>>     >>> >>
>>>     >>> >
>>>     >>> >
>>>     >>
>>>     >>
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > --
>>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
>>>     >
>>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>     >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
hello jan-kees,

first of all: thank you for your contributions!

i had a quick look at some of your patches.
and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc [1]

the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the
snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc comments are
the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]).
there are also classes with slight variations.

anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used by
mojarra (cddl and gpl).

regards,
gerhard

[1]
https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
[2]
https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html
[3]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch



2008/12/2 Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>

> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which
> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
> So we might be able to share the work.
> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this signed
> not to get into legal trouble ;-)
>
> Werner
>
>
> Simon Lessard schrieb:
>
>> Hi Jan-Kees,
>>
>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them
>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> ~ Simon
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
>> jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
>>    community, instead of only using MyFaces...
>>
>>    I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
>>    for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
>>
>>    Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things.
>>    I'm sure there are things to improve.
>>
>>    Regards,
>>
>>    Jan-Kees
>>
>>    @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
>>
>>
>>    2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>>    <ma...@apache.org>>:
>>     > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
>>     > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>     >> Hi,
>>     >>
>>     >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every
>>    change. You'll
>>     >> find that most new classes and methods are already there though,
>>    but some
>>     >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>>     >
>>     > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>>     >
>>     > -Matthias
>>     >
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Regards,
>>     >>
>>     >> ~ Simon
>>     >>
>>     >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>     >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>    wrote:
>>     >>>
>>     >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new
>>    API classes?
>>     >>>
>>     >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those
>>     >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>>     >>>
>>     >>> /Jan-Kees
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>>     >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>>     >>> >
>>     >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
>>    myfaces-api.jar
>>     >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's,
>>    but with
>>     >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base.
>>    However I must
>>     >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>>     >>> >
>>     >>> >
>>     >>> > Regards,
>>     >>> >
>>     >>> > ~ Simon
>>     >>> >
>>     >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>     >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>>    <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     >>> >>
>>     >>> >> Hi all,
>>     >>> >>
>>     >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces
>>    javax.faces
>>     >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or
>>    does this
>>     >>> >> cause
>>     >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand,
>>    based on the
>>     >>> >> spec?
>>     >>> >>
>>     >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
>>    package are
>>     >>> >> missing.
>>     >>> >>
>>     >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it
>>    needs to be
>>     >>> >> done by hand.
>>     >>> >>
>>     >>> >> Regards,
>>     >>> >> Jan-Kees
>>     >>> >>
>>     >>> >>
>>     >>> >>
>>     >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>>    <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>
>>     >>> >>>
>>     >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There
>>    are some
>>     >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF
>>    2.0. Although
>>     >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see
>>    pdl) and
>>     >>> >>> the
>>     >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree
>>    population
>>     >>> >>> that
>>     >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>>     >>> >>>
>>     >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as
>>    it's going to
>>     >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
>>    Facelets and our
>>     >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first
>>    implemented,
>>     >>> >>> much
>>     >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve
>>    their own
>>     >>> >>> code and
>>     >>> >>> so on.
>>     >>> >>>
>>     >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should
>>    limit the
>>     >>> >>> amount
>>     >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates
>>    and bug
>>     >>> >>> fixes
>>     >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>>     >>> >>>
>>     >>> >>>
>>     >>> >>> Regards,
>>     >>> >>>
>>     >>> >>> ~ Simon
>>     >>> >>>
>>     >>> >>>
>>     >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
>>    <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>     >>> >>> wrote:
>>     >>> >>>>
>>     >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>     >>> >>>>>
>>     >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>>     >>> >>>>>
>>     >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from
>>    scratch?
>>     >>> >>>>>
>>     >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my
>>     >>> >>>> knowledge
>>     >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>>     >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
>>    compatibility close
>>     >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change
>>    the packages
>>     >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
>>     >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
>>     >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues
>>    between the RI
>>     >>> >>>> and
>>     >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>     >>> >>>>
>>     >>> >>>>
>>     >>> >>>> Werner
>>     >>> >>>>
>>     >>> >>>
>>     >>> >>
>>     >>> >
>>     >>> >
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > --
>>     > Matthias Wessendorf
>>     >
>>     > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>     > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>     > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>     >
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which 
currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
So we might be able to share the work.
Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this 
signed not to get into legal trouble ;-)

Werner


Simon Lessard schrieb:
> Hi Jan-Kees,
> 
> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them 
> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> ~ Simon
> 
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel 
> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>      From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
>     community, instead of only using MyFaces...
> 
>     I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
>     for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
> 
>     Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things.
>     I'm sure there are things to improve.
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Jan-Kees
> 
>     @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
> 
> 
>     2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>     <ma...@apache.org>>:
>      > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
>      > <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>      >> Hi,
>      >>
>      >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every
>     change. You'll
>      >> find that most new classes and methods are already there though,
>     but some
>      >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>      >
>      > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>      >
>      > -Matthias
>      >
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> Regards,
>      >>
>      >> ~ Simon
>      >>
>      >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>      >> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>      >>>
>      >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new
>     API classes?
>      >>>
>      >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those
>      >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>      >>>
>      >>> /Jan-Kees
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>     <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>      >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>      >>> >
>      >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
>     myfaces-api.jar
>      >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's,
>     but with
>      >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base.
>     However I must
>      >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>      >>> >
>      >>> >
>      >>> > Regards,
>      >>> >
>      >>> > ~ Simon
>      >>> >
>      >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>      >>> > <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>     <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>      >>> >>
>      >>> >> Hi all,
>      >>> >>
>      >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces
>     javax.faces
>      >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or
>     does this
>      >>> >> cause
>      >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand,
>     based on the
>      >>> >> spec?
>      >>> >>
>      >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets
>     package are
>      >>> >> missing.
>      >>> >>
>      >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it
>     needs to be
>      >>> >> done by hand.
>      >>> >>
>      >>> >> Regards,
>      >>> >> Jan-Kees
>      >>> >>
>      >>> >>
>      >>> >>
>      >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>     <ma...@gmail.com>>
>      >>> >>>
>      >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There
>     are some
>      >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF
>     2.0. Although
>      >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see
>     pdl) and
>      >>> >>> the
>      >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree
>     population
>      >>> >>> that
>      >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>      >>> >>>
>      >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as
>     it's going to
>      >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's
>     Facelets and our
>      >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first
>     implemented,
>      >>> >>> much
>      >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve
>     their own
>      >>> >>> code and
>      >>> >>> so on.
>      >>> >>>
>      >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should
>     limit the
>      >>> >>> amount
>      >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates
>     and bug
>      >>> >>> fixes
>      >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>      >>> >>>
>      >>> >>>
>      >>> >>> Regards,
>      >>> >>>
>      >>> >>> ~ Simon
>      >>> >>>
>      >>> >>>
>      >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz
>     <werner.punz@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>      >>> >>> wrote:
>      >>> >>>>
>      >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>      >>> >>>>>
>      >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>      >>> >>>>>
>      >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from
>     scratch?
>      >>> >>>>>
>      >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my
>      >>> >>>> knowledge
>      >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>      >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the
>     compatibility close
>      >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change
>     the packages
>      >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
>      >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
>      >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues
>     between the RI
>      >>> >>>> and
>      >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>      >>> >>>>
>      >>> >>>>
>      >>> >>>> Werner
>      >>> >>>>
>      >>> >>>
>      >>> >>
>      >>> >
>      >>> >
>      >>
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      > Matthias Wessendorf
>      >
>      > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>      > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>      > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>      >
> 
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jan-Kees,

Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them on
Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.


Regards,

~ Simon

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
jankeesvanandel@gmail.com> wrote:

> From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
> community, instead of only using MyFaces...
>
> I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
> for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).
>
> Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things.
> I'm sure there are things to improve.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jan-Kees
>
> @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.
>
>
> 2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
> > <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every change.
> You'll
> >> find that most new classes and methods are already there though, but
> some
> >> new ones just popped with the public review version.
> >
> > it is great to see more and more active folks here!
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> ~ Simon
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new API
> classes?
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those
> >>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> /Jan-Kees
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>:
> >>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
> >>> >
> >>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within
> myfaces-api.jar
> >>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, but with
> >>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. However I
> must
> >>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Regards,
> >>> >
> >>> > ~ Simon
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> >>> > <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi all,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces
> javax.faces
> >>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this
> >>> >> cause
> >>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the
> >>> >> spec?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are
> >>> >> missing.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to
> be
> >>> >> done by hand.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Regards,
> >>> >> Jan-Kees
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some
> >>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0.
> Although
> >>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and
> >>> >>> the
> >>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree
> population
> >>> >>> that
> >>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going
> to
> >>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and
> our
> >>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first
> implemented,
> >>> >>> much
> >>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own
> >>> >>> code and
> >>> >>> so on.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the
> >>> >>> amount
> >>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug
> >>> >>> fixes
> >>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Regards,
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> ~ Simon
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <
> werner.punz@gmail.com>
> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my
> >>> >>>> knowledge
> >>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
> >>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility
> close
> >>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the
> packages
> >>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
> >>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
> >>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the
> RI
> >>> >>>> and
> >>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Werner
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>.
>From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
community, instead of only using MyFaces...

I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together).

Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things.
I'm sure there are things to improve.

Regards,

Jan-Kees

@Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated.


2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every change. You'll
>> find that most new classes and methods are already there though, but some
>> new ones just popped with the public review version.
>
> it is great to see more and more active folks here!
>
> -Matthias
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> ~ Simon
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new API classes?
>>>
>>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those
>>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>>>
>>> /Jan-Kees
>>>
>>>
>>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>:
>>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>>> >
>>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within myfaces-api.jar
>>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, but with
>>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. However I must
>>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > ~ Simon
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>> > <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi all,
>>> >>
>>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces javax.faces
>>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this
>>> >> cause
>>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the
>>> >> spec?
>>> >>
>>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are
>>> >> missing.
>>> >>
>>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to be
>>> >> done by hand.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Jan-Kees
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some
>>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although
>>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree population
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to
>>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our
>>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented,
>>> >>> much
>>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own
>>> >>> code and
>>> >>> so on.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the
>>> >>> amount
>>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug
>>> >>> fixes
>>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Regards,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ~ Simon
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my
>>> >>>> knowledge
>>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close
>>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages
>>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
>>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
>>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Werner
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard
<si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every change. You'll
> find that most new classes and methods are already there though, but some
> new ones just popped with the public review version.

it is great to see more and more active folks here!

-Matthias

>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new API classes?
>>
>> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those
>> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>>
>> /Jan-Kees
>>
>>
>> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>:
>> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>> >
>> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within myfaces-api.jar
>> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, but with
>> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. However I must
>> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > ~ Simon
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>> > <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces javax.faces
>> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this
>> >> cause
>> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the
>> >> spec?
>> >>
>> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are
>> >> missing.
>> >>
>> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to be
>> >> done by hand.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Jan-Kees
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some
>> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although
>> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and
>> >>> the
>> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree population
>> >>> that
>> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>> >>>
>> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to
>> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our
>> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented,
>> >>> much
>> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own
>> >>> code and
>> >>> so on.
>> >>>
>> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the
>> >>> amount
>> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug
>> >>> fixes
>> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> ~ Simon
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hey Simon,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my
>> >>>> knowledge
>> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close
>> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages
>> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
>> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
>> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Werner
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
Hi,

Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every change. You'll
find that most new classes and methods are already there though, but some
new ones just popped with the public review version.


Regards,

~ Simon

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
jankeesvanandel@gmail.com> wrote:

> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new API classes?
>
> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those
> interfaces/etc. ;-)
>
> /Jan-Kees
>
>
> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Jan-Kees,
> >
> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within myfaces-api.jar
> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, but with
> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. However I must
> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > ~ Simon
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> > <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces javax.faces
> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this
> cause
> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the
> spec?
> >>
> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are
> >> missing.
> >>
> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to be
> >> done by hand.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jan-Kees
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some
> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although
> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and the
> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree population
> that
> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to
> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our
> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented,
> much
> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own
> code and
> >>> so on.
> >>>
> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the amount
> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug
> fixes
> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> ~ Simon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hey Simon,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my knowledge
> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close
> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages
> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI
> and
> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Werner
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>.
All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new API classes?

I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those
interfaces/etc. ;-)

/Jan-Kees


2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Jan-Kees,
>
> MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within myfaces-api.jar
> file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, but with
> different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. However I must
> admit that most difference reside within the -impl
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces javax.faces
>> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this cause
>> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the spec?
>>
>> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are
>> missing.
>>
>> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to be
>> done by hand.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jan-Kees
>>
>>
>>
>> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some
>>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although
>>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and the
>>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree population that
>>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>>>
>>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to
>>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our
>>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented, much
>>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own code and
>>> so on.
>>>
>>> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the amount
>>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug fixes
>>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> ~ Simon
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Simon,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>>>>>
>>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my knowledge
>>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close
>>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages
>>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
>>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
>>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI and
>>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Werner
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jan-Kees,

MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within myfaces-api.jar
file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, but with
different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. However I must
admit that most difference reside within the -impl


Regards,

~ Simon

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel <
jankeesvanandel@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces javax.faces
> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this cause
> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the spec?
>
> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are missing.
>
> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to be
> done by hand.
>
> Regards,
> Jan-Kees
>
>
>
> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
>
> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some
>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although
>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and the
>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree population that
>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>>
>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to
>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our
>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented, much
>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own code and
>> so on.
>>
>> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the amount of
>> changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug fixes every
>> now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> ~ Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Hey Simon,
>>>>
>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>>>>
>>>>  I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my knowledge
>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close
>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages
>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI and
>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>>
>>>
>>> Werner
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,

It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces javax.faces
codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this cause
licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the spec?

A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are missing.

If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to be done
by hand.

Regards,
Jan-Kees



2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>

> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some
> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although
> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and the
> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree population that
> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm).
>
> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to
> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our
> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented, much
> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own code and
> so on.
>
> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the amount of
> changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug fixes every
> now and then for example), I could also abide to that.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Kito Mann schrieb:
>>
>>> Hey Simon,
>>>
>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>>>
>>>  I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my knowledge
>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close
>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages
>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI and
>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>>
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some contract
difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although they're mostly
compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and the createView contract
was changed as well (forcing full tree population that doesn't seem to be
the case in Facelets code atm).

Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to start
an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our Facelets,
much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented, much faster than
RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own code and so on.

That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the amount of
changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug fixes every
now and then for example), I could also abide to that.


Regards,

~ Simon


On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kito Mann schrieb:
>
>> Hey Simon,
>>
>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>>
>>  I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my knowledge
> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close
> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages
> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI and
> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!
>
>
> Werner
>
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Kito Mann schrieb:
> Hey Simon,
> 
> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
> 
I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my knowledge
facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2
I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close
no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages
if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase.
It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or
to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI and 
MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship!


Werner

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Kito Mann <ki...@virtua.com> wrote:
> Ah, okay. Thanks for the info. That definitely saves some time :-).

+1

I thought you guys "forced" the new license to be ASL.
(or at least some of the EG)

-M

>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> No, Facelets license was changed to ASL specifically to make integration
>> possible so we're actually integrating Facelets code directly but with
>> different package names and/or class names, hence why I just added some info
>> in NOTICE.txt specifying such usage as suggested on legal-discuss when I
>> raised the question.
>>
>> ~ Simon
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kito Mann <ki...@virtua.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Simon,
>>>
>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Simon Lessard
>>> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We're reaching the point of integrating Facelets to the core 2.0 branch
>>>> and we need to determine what kind of package structure we'll be using.My
>>>> first thought would be to concentrate core Facelets classes in
>>>> org.apache.myfaces.application.facelets and place the tag classes in
>>>> org.apache.myfaces.taglib.facelets.core/html/* and move jsp specific tags
>>>> from org.apache.myfaces.taglib.* to org.apache.myfaces.taglib.jsp.*
>>>>
>>>> Is there any better suggestion for this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> ~ Simon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
>>> http://twitter.com/kito99
>>> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
>>> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>>> +1 203-404-4848 x3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://twitter.com/kito99
> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> +1 203-404-4848 x3
>
>
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Kito Mann <ki...@virtua.com>.
Ah, okay. Thanks for the info. That definitely saves some time :-).

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>wrote:

> No, Facelets license was changed to ASL specifically to make integration
> possible so we're actually integrating Facelets code directly but with
> different package names and/or class names, hence why I just added some info
> in NOTICE.txt specifying such usage as suggested on legal-discuss when I
> raised the question.
>
> ~ Simon
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kito Mann <ki...@virtua.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Simon,
>>
>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We're reaching the point of integrating Facelets to the core 2.0 branch
>>> and we need to determine what kind of package structure we'll be using.My
>>> first thought would be to concentrate core Facelets classes in
>>> org.apache.myfaces.application.facelets and place the tag classes in
>>> org.apache.myfaces.taglib.facelets.core/html/* and move jsp specific tags
>>> from org.apache.myfaces.taglib.* to org.apache.myfaces.taglib.jsp.*
>>>
>>> Is there any better suggestion for this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> ~ Simon
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
>> http://twitter.com/kito99
>> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
>> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>> +1 203-404-4848 x3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
No, Facelets license was changed to ASL specifically to make integration
possible so we're actually integrating Facelets code directly but with
different package names and/or class names, hence why I just added some info
in NOTICE.txt specifying such usage as suggested on legal-discuss when I
raised the question.

~ Simon

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kito Mann <ki...@virtua.com> wrote:

> Hey Simon,
>
> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We're reaching the point of integrating Facelets to the core 2.0 branch
>> and we need to determine what kind of package structure we'll be using.My
>> first thought would be to concentrate core Facelets classes in
>> org.apache.myfaces.application.facelets and place the tag classes in
>> org.apache.myfaces.taglib.facelets.core/html/* and move jsp specific tags
>> from org.apache.myfaces.taglib.* to org.apache.myfaces.taglib.jsp.*
>>
>> Is there any better suggestion for this?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ~ Simon
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://twitter.com/kito99
> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> +1 203-404-4848 x3
>
>
>
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Kito Mann <ki...@virtua.com>.
Hey Simon,

Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch?

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We're reaching the point of integrating Facelets to the core 2.0 branch and
> we need to determine what kind of package structure we'll be using.My first
> thought would be to concentrate core Facelets classes in
> org.apache.myfaces.application.facelets and place the tag classes in
> org.apache.myfaces.taglib.facelets.core/html/* and move jsp specific tags
> from org.apache.myfaces.taglib.* to org.apache.myfaces.taglib.jsp.*
>
> Is there any better suggestion for this?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> ~ Simon
>



-- 
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
True, that's a new addition, it does give an answer for some of the classes
;)

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>>  We have to take into account that tomahawk needs to generate the jsp tag
>> hierarchy changing the package names of generated jsp tag classes from
>> org.apache.myfaces.taglib to org.apache.myfaces.shared_tomahawk.taglib (this
>> is done when myfaces-metadata.xml for tomahawk is generated). It is
>> difficult to see this point clear now, but at first look sounds good.
>>
>>  Based on some tests long time ago (checking incompatibilities of trinidad
>> optimized state saving and facelets), facelets has some inner components
>> used only when build the component tree from the abstract syntax tree. I
>> think we need a package for that too (if in our implementation appears).
>>
>
> Just a suggestion, checking the snapshot of the jsf 2.0 javadoc at
>
>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html
>
> It seems to be a new package called javax.faces.webapp.pld.facelets with a
> class called FaceletHandler (all tag handlers should inherit from there). It
> could be good to add it to the branch to start coding that part.
>
> regards
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We're reaching the point of integrating Facelets to the core 2.0 branch
>>> and we need to determine what kind of package structure we'll be using.My
>>> first thought would be to concentrate core Facelets classes in
>>> org.apache.myfaces.application.facelets and place the tag classes in
>>> org.apache.myfaces.taglib.facelets.core/html/* and move jsp specific tags
>>> from org.apache.myfaces.taglib.* to org.apache.myfaces.taglib.jsp.*
>>>
>>
>>> Is there any better suggestion for this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> ~ Simon
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
>  We have to take into account that tomahawk needs to generate the jsp tag
> hierarchy changing the package names of generated jsp tag classes from
> org.apache.myfaces.taglib to org.apache.myfaces.shared_tomahawk.taglib (this
> is done when myfaces-metadata.xml for tomahawk is generated). It is
> difficult to see this point clear now, but at first look sounds good.
>
>  Based on some tests long time ago (checking incompatibilities of trinidad
> optimized state saving and facelets), facelets has some inner components
> used only when build the component tree from the abstract syntax tree. I
> think we need a package for that too (if in our implementation appears).
>

Just a suggestion, checking the snapshot of the jsf 2.0 javadoc at

https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html

It seems to be a new package called javax.faces.webapp.pld.facelets with a
class called FaceletHandler (all tag handlers should inherit from there). It
could be good to add it to the branch to start coding that part.

regards

Leonardo Uribe


>
> regards
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We're reaching the point of integrating Facelets to the core 2.0 branch
>> and we need to determine what kind of package structure we'll be using.My
>> first thought would be to concentrate core Facelets classes in
>> org.apache.myfaces.application.facelets and place the tag classes in
>> org.apache.myfaces.taglib.facelets.core/html/* and move jsp specific tags
>> from org.apache.myfaces.taglib.* to org.apache.myfaces.taglib.jsp.*
>>
>
>> Is there any better suggestion for this?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ~ Simon
>>
>
>

Re: [JSF 2.0] Package structure for Facelets integration

Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi

 We have to take into account that tomahawk needs to generate the jsp tag
hierarchy changing the package names of generated jsp tag classes from
org.apache.myfaces.taglib to org.apache.myfaces.shared_tomahawk.taglib (this
is done when myfaces-metadata.xml for tomahawk is generated). It is
difficult to see this point clear now, but at first look sounds good.

 Based on some tests long time ago (checking incompatibilities of trinidad
optimized state saving and facelets), facelets has some inner components
used only when build the component tree from the abstract syntax tree. I
think we need a package for that too (if in our implementation appears).

regards

Leonardo Uribe

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We're reaching the point of integrating Facelets to the core 2.0 branch and
> we need to determine what kind of package structure we'll be using.My first
> thought would be to concentrate core Facelets classes in
> org.apache.myfaces.application.facelets and place the tag classes in
> org.apache.myfaces.taglib.facelets.core/html/* and move jsp specific tags
> from org.apache.myfaces.taglib.* to org.apache.myfaces.taglib.jsp.*
>

> Is there any better suggestion for this?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> ~ Simon
>