You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@myfaces.apache.org by Adrien FOURES <af...@sigems.fr> on 2005/03/02 16:58:11 UTC
x:Tree 1.0.8 compatibility with new Tree2
Hello
I use the x:tree since the 1.0.7 version.
I want to know, if all my source code which use the x:tree component in
my current version 1.0.8, will be work with the new tree2.
And if is not working, is the old version will be maintained and install
in the 1.0.9?
Thanks,
Adrien
Re: x:Tree 1.0.8 compatibility with new Tree2
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
Adrien,
We are still figuring out what do with the new tree component but if
you use the current tree component you will likely have to make some
minor changes.
If you want to use tree2 you need to check it out the latest code from
CVS. Do you know how to use CVS and Ant?
We are in the middle of moving our infrastructure around now that
MyFaces is a top level Apache project. One of the things we are
working on is getting nightly builds. Once that is done users such as
yourself can just download the latest without worying about CVS and
Ant.
sean
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:33:09 +0100, Adrien FOURES <af...@sigems.fr> wrote:
> Olivier,
>
> Thanks you for your repply,
>
> I have found the last month an bug in the old tree, and you say me "I'll
> create an entry in the bugtracker so the issue will not be lost." So i
> am waiting for the 1.0.9 but if you put the tree2 instaid of the
> current, i will have some problem :-) if the bug is repaired.
>
> Sean say that it's possible to get the new tree2, but where?
>
> Thanks a lot for your help
>
> Adrien,
>
>
> Oliver Rossmueller wrote:
>
> > From my POV there are some issues we have to discuss before tree2 will
> > be a replacement for the current tree component (see follow-up post on
> > the dev list).
> >
> > Adrian, as I have lots of code based on the current tree component,
> > too, we will either find a way for current users to switch to a new
> > tree component with the need for only slight modifications to their
> > existing code base or we will continue to support the current tree
> > implementation in addition to tree2. But be asured, as there are only
> > a few things I hate more than a framework changing under my feet
> > half-way on the road to project deadline, we won't throw away the
> > current tree and tell you to use our new and better but completely
> > different tree component instead.
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> >
> > Sean Schofield wrote:
> >
> >> Adrien,
> >>
> >> That's a tricky question. The plan has been to replace tree with the
> >> new one. It was assumed that the new tree would have the same
> >> *functionality* as the old and I believe it does have the same
> >> functionality and more. One area that still needs to be addressed is
> >> the treetable. Once that is addressed we can get rid of the old tree.
> >>
> >> This would require some changes on your part. Basically this involves
> >> minor tweaks to the JSP and probably a couple of changes to your
> >> backing bean or whatever that sets up your tree data. I don't think
> >> this is a big deal but I'm not the one changing my code ;-) One of
> >> the improvements to the tree component is the configuration itself.
> >> So this kind of improvement cannot really be backwards compatible.
> >>
> >> You should really check out the new tree. IMO it is *much* better
> >> than the old one. Its a lot easier to configure and provides
> >> javascript collapse/expansion. My guess is that most users will find
> >> the new features worth the small amount of aggravation to switch.
> >>
> >> There is always the option of keeping the old tree around but I don't
> >> think that is a good long term plan. I'd like to see the new tree
> >> replace the old in the next version. If we can address the treetable
> >> issues then I think that makes sense.
> >>
> >> I'd be interested to hear what you and others think about this.
> >> Please take a moment to look at the new tree (if you haven't already)
> >> before reaching your conclusion.
> >>
> >> sean
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:58:11 +0100, Adrien FOURES <af...@sigems.fr>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hello
> >>>
> >>> I use the x:tree since the 1.0.7 version.
> >>> I want to know, if all my source code which use the x:tree component in
> >>> my current version 1.0.8, will be work with the new tree2.
> >>> And if is not working, is the old version will be maintained and
> >>> install
> >>> in the 1.0.9?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Adrien
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: x:Tree 1.0.8 compatibility with new Tree2
Posted by Adrien FOURES <af...@sigems.fr>.
Olivier,
Thanks you for your repply,
I have found the last month an bug in the old tree, and you say me "I'll
create an entry in the bugtracker so the issue will not be lost." So i
am waiting for the 1.0.9 but if you put the tree2 instaid of the
current, i will have some problem :-) if the bug is repaired.
Sean say that it's possible to get the new tree2, but where?
Thanks a lot for your help
Adrien,
Oliver Rossmueller wrote:
> From my POV there are some issues we have to discuss before tree2 will
> be a replacement for the current tree component (see follow-up post on
> the dev list).
>
> Adrian, as I have lots of code based on the current tree component,
> too, we will either find a way for current users to switch to a new
> tree component with the need for only slight modifications to their
> existing code base or we will continue to support the current tree
> implementation in addition to tree2. But be asured, as there are only
> a few things I hate more than a framework changing under my feet
> half-way on the road to project deadline, we won't throw away the
> current tree and tell you to use our new and better but completely
> different tree component instead.
>
> Oliver
>
>
> Sean Schofield wrote:
>
>> Adrien,
>>
>> That's a tricky question. The plan has been to replace tree with the
>> new one. It was assumed that the new tree would have the same
>> *functionality* as the old and I believe it does have the same
>> functionality and more. One area that still needs to be addressed is
>> the treetable. Once that is addressed we can get rid of the old tree.
>>
>> This would require some changes on your part. Basically this involves
>> minor tweaks to the JSP and probably a couple of changes to your
>> backing bean or whatever that sets up your tree data. I don't think
>> this is a big deal but I'm not the one changing my code ;-) One of
>> the improvements to the tree component is the configuration itself.
>> So this kind of improvement cannot really be backwards compatible.
>>
>> You should really check out the new tree. IMO it is *much* better
>> than the old one. Its a lot easier to configure and provides
>> javascript collapse/expansion. My guess is that most users will find
>> the new features worth the small amount of aggravation to switch.
>>
>> There is always the option of keeping the old tree around but I don't
>> think that is a good long term plan. I'd like to see the new tree
>> replace the old in the next version. If we can address the treetable
>> issues then I think that makes sense.
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear what you and others think about this.
>> Please take a moment to look at the new tree (if you haven't already)
>> before reaching your conclusion.
>>
>> sean
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:58:11 +0100, Adrien FOURES <af...@sigems.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I use the x:tree since the 1.0.7 version.
>>> I want to know, if all my source code which use the x:tree component in
>>> my current version 1.0.8, will be work with the new tree2.
>>> And if is not working, is the old version will be maintained and
>>> install
>>> in the 1.0.9?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Adrien
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: x:Tree 1.0.8 compatibility with new Tree2
Posted by Oliver Rossmueller <ol...@tuxerra.com>.
From my POV there are some issues we have to discuss before tree2 will
be a replacement for the current tree component (see follow-up post on
the dev list).
Adrian, as I have lots of code based on the current tree component, too,
we will either find a way for current users to switch to a new tree
component with the need for only slight modifications to their existing
code base or we will continue to support the current tree implementation
in addition to tree2. But be asured, as there are only a few things I
hate more than a framework changing under my feet half-way on the road
to project deadline, we won't throw away the current tree and tell you
to use our new and better but completely different tree component instead.
Oliver
Sean Schofield wrote:
>Adrien,
>
>That's a tricky question. The plan has been to replace tree with the
>new one. It was assumed that the new tree would have the same
>*functionality* as the old and I believe it does have the same
>functionality and more. One area that still needs to be addressed is
>the treetable. Once that is addressed we can get rid of the old tree.
>
>This would require some changes on your part. Basically this involves
>minor tweaks to the JSP and probably a couple of changes to your
>backing bean or whatever that sets up your tree data. I don't think
>this is a big deal but I'm not the one changing my code ;-) One of
>the improvements to the tree component is the configuration itself.
>So this kind of improvement cannot really be backwards compatible.
>
>You should really check out the new tree. IMO it is *much* better
>than the old one. Its a lot easier to configure and provides
>javascript collapse/expansion. My guess is that most users will find
>the new features worth the small amount of aggravation to switch.
>
>There is always the option of keeping the old tree around but I don't
>think that is a good long term plan. I'd like to see the new tree
>replace the old in the next version. If we can address the treetable
>issues then I think that makes sense.
>
>I'd be interested to hear what you and others think about this.
>Please take a moment to look at the new tree (if you haven't already)
>before reaching your conclusion.
>
>sean
>
>
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:58:11 +0100, Adrien FOURES <af...@sigems.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello
>>
>>I use the x:tree since the 1.0.7 version.
>>I want to know, if all my source code which use the x:tree component in
>>my current version 1.0.8, will be work with the new tree2.
>>And if is not working, is the old version will be maintained and install
>>in the 1.0.9?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Adrien
>>
>>
>>
--
Oliver Rossmueller
Software Engineer and IT-Consultant
Hamburg, Germany
http://www.rossmueller.com
Re: x:Tree 1.0.8 compatibility with new Tree2
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
Adrien,
That's a tricky question. The plan has been to replace tree with the
new one. It was assumed that the new tree would have the same
*functionality* as the old and I believe it does have the same
functionality and more. One area that still needs to be addressed is
the treetable. Once that is addressed we can get rid of the old tree.
This would require some changes on your part. Basically this involves
minor tweaks to the JSP and probably a couple of changes to your
backing bean or whatever that sets up your tree data. I don't think
this is a big deal but I'm not the one changing my code ;-) One of
the improvements to the tree component is the configuration itself.
So this kind of improvement cannot really be backwards compatible.
You should really check out the new tree. IMO it is *much* better
than the old one. Its a lot easier to configure and provides
javascript collapse/expansion. My guess is that most users will find
the new features worth the small amount of aggravation to switch.
There is always the option of keeping the old tree around but I don't
think that is a good long term plan. I'd like to see the new tree
replace the old in the next version. If we can address the treetable
issues then I think that makes sense.
I'd be interested to hear what you and others think about this.
Please take a moment to look at the new tree (if you haven't already)
before reaching your conclusion.
sean
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:58:11 +0100, Adrien FOURES <af...@sigems.fr> wrote:
> Hello
>
> I use the x:tree since the 1.0.7 version.
> I want to know, if all my source code which use the x:tree component in
> my current version 1.0.8, will be work with the new tree2.
> And if is not working, is the old version will be maintained and install
> in the 1.0.9?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrien
>