[Trinidad] ValueExpression in 1.2 and ValueBinding in 1.1

[Jeanne Waldman <je...@oracle.com>]

Hi,

I have a question about ValueExpression and ValueBinding.

I have a new API to handle the translation-source feature for skins. The 
SkinAddition has a new constructor that takes
a ValueExpression in the 1.2* Trinidad branch and a ValueBinding in 
Trinidad trunk.

My understanding is that Trinidad trunk cannot use ValueExpression.
Is this true?

If so, is it ok to have an API that takes ValueBinding in trunk and 
ValueExpression in 1.2*branch?
In other words, does the 1.2* branch of Trinidad have to keep backward 
compatibility, thus I would have a deprecated constructor that takes 
ValueBinding and another constructor that takes ValueExpression.


Thanks,
Jeanne

Re: [Trinidad] ValueExpression in 1.2 and ValueBinding in 1.1

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

>  Yeah, I was wondering what our policy is for backward compatibility between
> ValueExpression and ValueBinding.
>  I see we do it in some places (e.g., FacesBean) but not others (e.g.,
> DateTimeRangeValidator).

Not sure what you mean, but I see a set/get ValueExpression and
ValueBinding on the DateTimeRangeValidator, for instance ([1])


-Matthias

[1] http://tinyurl.com/2xsr26


>
>
>  -M
>
>
>
>  Thanks,
> Jeanne
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org

Re: [Trinidad] ValueExpression in 1.2 and ValueBinding in 1.1

[Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>]

For brand new APIs, I'm very tempted not to add "backwards compatibility"
to the 1.2 branch.  Dunno, could go either way on this one.

-- Adam


On 9/27/07, Jeanne Waldman <je...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi,


> My understanding is that Trinidad trunk cannot use ValueExpression.
Is this
> true?

> yes, the ValueExpression comes from the unified el, which is part of JSP
> 2.1


> If so, is it ok to have an API that takes ValueBinding in trunk
> and
ValueExpression in 1.2*branch?
In other words, does the 1.2* branch of
> Trinidad have to keep backward
compatibility, thus I would have a deprecated
> constructor that takes
ValueBinding and another constructor that takes
> ValueExpression.

> I think doing the two constructors, where one takes VBinding and
> is
deprecated is OK.
JSF API itself also keeps the "old" methods for
> backward compatibility
and adds new APIs that
work w/ the javax.el clazzes

> Yeah, I was wondering what our policy is for backward compatibility between
> ValueExpression and ValueBinding.
> I see we do it in some places (e.g., FacesBean) but not others (e.g.,
> DateTimeRangeValidator).
>
> -M


> Thanks,
Jeanne



>

>

Re: [Trinidad] ValueExpression in 1.2 and ValueBinding in 1.1

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

Hi,

> My understanding is that Trinidad trunk cannot use ValueExpression.
> Is this true?

yes, the ValueExpression comes from the unified el, which is part of JSP 2.1

>
> If so, is it ok to have an API that takes ValueBinding in trunk and
> ValueExpression in 1.2*branch?
> In other words, does the 1.2* branch of Trinidad have to keep backward
> compatibility, thus I would have a deprecated constructor that takes
> ValueBinding and another constructor that takes ValueExpression.

I think doing the two constructors, where one takes VBinding and is
deprecated is OK.
JSF API itself also keeps the "old" methods for backward compatibility
and adds new APIs that
work w/ the javax.el clazzes

-M

>
>
> Thanks,
> Jeanne
>
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org