You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> on 2005/04/18 23:39:36 UTC
JSF 1.2 and TCK
With the 1.2 spec nearing finalization what are the plans for TCK?
Would we try to certify MyFaces against 1.1 or 1.2? If we are going
for 1.2 that is a ways off but on the other hand, we could start
thinking about implementing some of the stuff in 1.2 that is also
going to be implemented in the RI version.
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
If you can manage to add this feature by only deriving and extending some
special classes I do not see a problem. Place your additions into the
"components and extensions" src tree. This way there will be no interfere
with the standard 1.1 implementation and we could easily migrate this code
into JSF 1.2 code later.
-Manfred
On 4/19/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What about the 1.2 changes that do not conflict with 1.1? For
> example, encryption of the client-side state. Does it make sense to
> implement those features now as long as they don't interfere with the
> 1.1 TCK? That one in particular I have been thinking about for a
> while so I was glad to see it added to the spec.
>
> sean
>
>
> On 4/18/05, Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/18/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > With the 1.2 spec nearing finalization what are the plans for TCK?
> > > Would we try to certify MyFaces against 1.1 or 1.2? If we are going
> > > for 1.2 that is a ways off but on the other hand, we could start
> > > thinking about implementing some of the stuff in 1.2 that is also
> > > going to be implemented in the RI version.
> > >
> >
> > As there hasn't been any implementation work on the 1.2 changes yet,
> > I'd certainly recommend going for 1.1 certification in the short term.
> > That would be what people are using today.
> >
> > Craig
> >
>
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
On 4/19/05, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> since you are/were developer of Tomcat, do you know any roadmap plans
> on a tomcat that supports JSP2.1 ?
I'm afraid "were" is the operative term here ... and no, I don't know
what the Tomcat team's plans are with regards to JSP 2.1.
>
> -mw-
>
Craig
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
Yes I would be interested to know what the plans were for that too.
Also is the JSP 2.1 spec on the same "track" as the JSF spec? I know
that they will both be part of the new J2EE spec eventually.
sean
On 4/19/05, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> since you are/were developer of Tomcat, do you know any roadmap plans
> on a tomcat that supports JSP2.1 ?
>
> -mw-
>
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ed-
> I'd love to see you guys start looking at 1.2, but you'll have to prod
> the tomcat people to implement JSP 2.1. In the meantime, you can get
> working on JSF 1.2 using facelets and the el impl from glassfish.
yes, but currently (AFAIK) there is no decision rearding CDDL and
Apache 2.0 stuff. But that will follow...;)
> Also, why don't I see a big splash about you guys on TSS?
We are about to prepare a "bin" version, TCK passed version is only
available via nightly builds ;)
-Matthias
> Ed
>
>
> --
> | ed.burns@sun.com | {home: 407 869 9587, office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640}
> | homepage: | http://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/
> | aim: edburns0sunw | iim: ed.burns@sun.com
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
50674 Köln
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Adam, the laurels are good indeed, but there is also bugs ;-)
Come on myfacers, there is a beautiful list of bugs to beat where
everybody is invited! Don't be afraid to check the JIRA and provide
patches! If you see one that is not assigned you can work on it! This
will make myfaces stronger :-)
Thanks for your contributions,
Bruno
2005/9/15, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>:
> Congrats, guys. All the adulation is well-deserved! And let's all
> give the team some time to rest on their laurels before worrying
> about 1.2. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Adam Winer
>
>
> On 9/14/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Also, why don't I see a big splash about you guys on TSS?
> >
> > We're holding off on the formal announcement unti we get a official
> > release build retested and then propogated to the mirrors, etc.
> > Announcement should come Monday.
> >
> > > Ed
> >
> > sean
> >
>
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
Congrats, guys. All the adulation is well-deserved! And let's all
give the team some time to rest on their laurels before worrying
about 1.2. :)
Cheers,
Adam Winer
On 9/14/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, why don't I see a big splash about you guys on TSS?
>
> We're holding off on the formal announcement unti we get a official
> release build retested and then propogated to the mirrors, etc.
> Announcement should come Monday.
>
> > Ed
>
> sean
>
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
> Also, why don't I see a big splash about you guys on TSS?
We're holding off on the formal announcement unti we get a official
release build retested and then propogated to the mirrors, etc.
Announcement should come Monday.
> Ed
sean
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Ed Burns <ed...@sun.com>.
Congrats on passing the TCK! I agree with what Craig said, it's good
for the customers to have multiple implementations to choose from.
I'd love to see you guys start looking at 1.2, but you'll have to prod
the tomcat people to implement JSP 2.1. In the meantime, you can get
working on JSF 1.2 using facelets and the el impl from glassfish.
Also, why don't I see a big splash about you guys on TSS?
Ed
--
| ed.burns@sun.com | {home: 407 869 9587, office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640}
| homepage: | http://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/
| aim: edburns0sunw | iim: ed.burns@sun.com
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com>.
Craig,
since you are/were developer of Tomcat, do you know any roadmap plans
on a tomcat that supports JSP2.1 ?
-mw-
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Ed Burns <ed...@sun.com>.
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:01:51 -0400, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> said:
SS> What about the 1.2 changes that do not conflict with 1.1? For
SS> example, encryption of the client-side state. Does it make sense to
SS> implement those features now as long as they don't interfere with the
SS> 1.1 TCK? That one in particular I have been thinking about for a
SS> while so I was glad to see it added to the spec.
Yes, you can add it right now. In fact, as mentioned in my blog [1]
the public Sun JSF RI is using that approach because the JSP 2.1
container isn't publically available yet.
Ed
[1] http://weblogs.java.net/blog/edburns/archive/2005/04/javaserver_face_1.html
--
| ed.burns@sun.com | {home: 407 869 9587, office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640}
| homepage: | http://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/
| aim: edburns0sunw | iim: ed.burns@sun.com
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
What about the 1.2 changes that do not conflict with 1.1? For
example, encryption of the client-side state. Does it make sense to
implement those features now as long as they don't interfere with the
1.1 TCK? That one in particular I have been thinking about for a
while so I was glad to see it added to the spec.
sean
On 4/18/05, Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With the 1.2 spec nearing finalization what are the plans for TCK?
> > Would we try to certify MyFaces against 1.1 or 1.2? If we are going
> > for 1.2 that is a ways off but on the other hand, we could start
> > thinking about implementing some of the stuff in 1.2 that is also
> > going to be implemented in the RI version.
> >
>
> As there hasn't been any implementation work on the 1.2 changes yet,
> I'd certainly recommend going for 1.1 certification in the short term.
> That would be what people are using today.
>
> Craig
>
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
On 4/18/05, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, some main features of 1.2 depend on JSP 2.1
>
> so, it is better to have TCK against 1.1
>
> Craig, are you familar with TCK? Or is Geir the man we need ?
>
Well, my JSF code (the RI) had to pass the TCK. Does that count as
"familiar"? :-)
But, in terms of acquiring the rights for Apache to have access to the
TCK for 1.1, Geir is definitely the right starting point (that's
process stuff, not technical stuff). I can assist on any
communications roadblocks within Sun, however.
> -mw-
Craig
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com>.
Yes, some main features of 1.2 depend on JSP 2.1
so, it is better to have TCK against 1.1
Craig, are you familar with TCK? Or is Geir the man we need ?
-mw-
On 4/19/05, Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With the 1.2 spec nearing finalization what are the plans for TCK?
> > Would we try to certify MyFaces against 1.1 or 1.2? If we are going
> > for 1.2 that is a ways off but on the other hand, we could start
> > thinking about implementing some of the stuff in 1.2 that is also
> > going to be implemented in the RI version.
> >
>
> As there hasn't been any implementation work on the 1.2 changes yet,
> I'd certainly recommend going for 1.1 certification in the short term.
> That would be what people are using today.
>
> Craig
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
Re: JSF 1.2 and TCK
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
On 4/18/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With the 1.2 spec nearing finalization what are the plans for TCK?
> Would we try to certify MyFaces against 1.1 or 1.2? If we are going
> for 1.2 that is a ways off but on the other hand, we could start
> thinking about implementing some of the stuff in 1.2 that is also
> going to be implemented in the RI version.
>
As there hasn't been any implementation work on the 1.2 changes yet,
I'd certainly recommend going for 1.1 certification in the short term.
That would be what people are using today.
Craig