You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to adffaces-dev@incubator.apache.org by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> on 2007/02/04 12:03:44 UTC
Re: versioning
resent, because went to PMC list.....
On 2/3/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> hi guys,
>
> currently our stuff has no real version number; only M1, which is
> almost nothing.
>
> I think we should name the current Trinidad stuff 1.0.0 and put the m1
> (or incubator or incubating) to it, because of being incubator (for
> plugins and core).
>
> So something like:
>
> <version>incubator-m1-SNAPSHOT</version>
>
> would be:
> <version>1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT</version>
>
> The "incubating" I saw, when looking at OpenJPA.
> (of course w/o SNAPSHOT, after we do a release)
>
> For the JSF 1.2 branch I suggest to use the version 2.0
>
> I think it doesn't make sense to follow the JSF version system in the
> version system of us.
> So, according to some blog entries, the next version for JSF (targeted
> for Java EE 6), will be called JSF 6. That would mean, if we stay
> tightly with their system we'd have a release or
>
> Trinidad 1.0 (mustn't it be 1.1 ??)
> Trinidad 1.2
> Trinidad 6
>
> which is really confusing (to me).
>
> So, to sum it up:
>
> -the current Trinidad stuff (based on JSF 1.1) will be 1.0.0
> -the *future* stuff (based on JSF 1.2) will be the 2.0.0 stuff
> -In case of JSF 6, we simply have a 3.0.0.
> -using "$version-incubating" instead of "$version-m1"
>
> Any comments ?
>
> -Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: versioning
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
now the trunk (1.0.1-incubating-snap) has a dependency to the release
plugins (1.0.0-incubating)
-M
On 2/27/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> ok,
>
> I'll change the pom to reflact that.
>
> (I need to add a <pluginsRepo> tag for that, since the m2-incubator
> repo isn't published to ibiblio)
>
> -M
>
> On 2/27/07, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/27/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I changed the trunk plugins to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
> > > I changed the trunk core to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
> > >
> > > I created also a branch for core to work on a release of
> > > 1.0.0-incubating, which will depend on the "released" 1.0.0-incubating
> > > Plugins (see my earlier mail from today).
> > >
> > > For now, I think the CORE trunk should depend on the *trunk* of the plugins.
> > > Another option would be to "just" depend on the "released" stuff of the plugins.
> > > I am fine with both.
> >
> > I think the CORE trunk should depend on released plugins, until
> > there's a need to rev to snapshots. And, ideally, we'd rarely
> > even do that. We'd put out new releases of the plugin if
> > CORE needed bug fixes urgently. In practice, though, this
> > may be very difficult since the two are somewhat coupled.
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > >
> > > In case of we need a "fix" for the plugins we have two possible scenarios:
> > >
> > > CORE depends on a released version:
> > > when trying to release CORE and seeing an issue in the plugins, we
> > > need to release that particular plugin (or all at once), to have the
> > > trunk use the "fixed" patched plugins.
> > >
> > > CORE depends on SNAPSHOT
> > > A fix is quicker, since both artifacts are SNAPSHOTS.
> > > But at the end, to be able to release the CORE, we also need a release
> > > the plugins before that.
> > >
> > > One more, since we, the Apache MyFaces/Trinidad community is in charge
> > > of the PLUGINS and the CORE, there isn't that big issue in depending
> > > on a SNAPSHOT, since it is "our" code.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Matthias
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: versioning
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
ok,
I'll change the pom to reflact that.
(I need to add a <pluginsRepo> tag for that, since the m2-incubator
repo isn't published to ibiblio)
-M
On 2/27/07, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I changed the trunk plugins to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
> > I changed the trunk core to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
> >
> > I created also a branch for core to work on a release of
> > 1.0.0-incubating, which will depend on the "released" 1.0.0-incubating
> > Plugins (see my earlier mail from today).
> >
> > For now, I think the CORE trunk should depend on the *trunk* of the plugins.
> > Another option would be to "just" depend on the "released" stuff of the plugins.
> > I am fine with both.
>
> I think the CORE trunk should depend on released plugins, until
> there's a need to rev to snapshots. And, ideally, we'd rarely
> even do that. We'd put out new releases of the plugin if
> CORE needed bug fixes urgently. In practice, though, this
> may be very difficult since the two are somewhat coupled.
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> >
> > In case of we need a "fix" for the plugins we have two possible scenarios:
> >
> > CORE depends on a released version:
> > when trying to release CORE and seeing an issue in the plugins, we
> > need to release that particular plugin (or all at once), to have the
> > trunk use the "fixed" patched plugins.
> >
> > CORE depends on SNAPSHOT
> > A fix is quicker, since both artifacts are SNAPSHOTS.
> > But at the end, to be able to release the CORE, we also need a release
> > the plugins before that.
> >
> > One more, since we, the Apache MyFaces/Trinidad community is in charge
> > of the PLUGINS and the CORE, there isn't that big issue in depending
> > on a SNAPSHOT, since it is "our" code.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matthias
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: versioning
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
On 2/27/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I changed the trunk plugins to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
> I changed the trunk core to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
>
> I created also a branch for core to work on a release of
> 1.0.0-incubating, which will depend on the "released" 1.0.0-incubating
> Plugins (see my earlier mail from today).
>
> For now, I think the CORE trunk should depend on the *trunk* of the plugins.
> Another option would be to "just" depend on the "released" stuff of the plugins.
> I am fine with both.
I think the CORE trunk should depend on released plugins, until
there's a need to rev to snapshots. And, ideally, we'd rarely
even do that. We'd put out new releases of the plugin if
CORE needed bug fixes urgently. In practice, though, this
may be very difficult since the two are somewhat coupled.
-- Adam
>
> In case of we need a "fix" for the plugins we have two possible scenarios:
>
> CORE depends on a released version:
> when trying to release CORE and seeing an issue in the plugins, we
> need to release that particular plugin (or all at once), to have the
> trunk use the "fixed" patched plugins.
>
> CORE depends on SNAPSHOT
> A fix is quicker, since both artifacts are SNAPSHOTS.
> But at the end, to be able to release the CORE, we also need a release
> the plugins before that.
>
> One more, since we, the Apache MyFaces/Trinidad community is in charge
> of the PLUGINS and the CORE, there isn't that big issue in depending
> on a SNAPSHOT, since it is "our" code.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Thanks,
> Matthias
>
Re: versioning
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I changed the trunk plugins to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
I changed the trunk core to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
I created also a branch for core to work on a release of
1.0.0-incubating, which will depend on the "released" 1.0.0-incubating
Plugins (see my earlier mail from today).
For now, I think the CORE trunk should depend on the *trunk* of the plugins.
Another option would be to "just" depend on the "released" stuff of the plugins.
I am fine with both.
In case of we need a "fix" for the plugins we have two possible scenarios:
CORE depends on a released version:
when trying to release CORE and seeing an issue in the plugins, we
need to release that particular plugin (or all at once), to have the
trunk use the "fixed" patched plugins.
CORE depends on SNAPSHOT
A fix is quicker, since both artifacts are SNAPSHOTS.
But at the end, to be able to release the CORE, we also need a release
the plugins before that.
One more, since we, the Apache MyFaces/Trinidad community is in charge
of the PLUGINS and the CORE, there isn't that big issue in depending
on a SNAPSHOT, since it is "our" code.
What do you guys think?
Thanks,
Matthias
Re: versioning
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I changed the trunk plugins to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
I changed the trunk core to have 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT as its version.
I created also a branch for core to work on a release of
1.0.0-incubating, which will depend on the "released" 1.0.0-incubating
Plugins (see my earlier mail from today).
For now, I think the CORE trunk should depend on the *trunk* of the plugins.
Another option would be to "just" depend on the "released" stuff of the plugins.
I am fine with both.
In case of we need a "fix" for the plugins we have two possible scenarios:
CORE depends on a released version:
when trying to release CORE and seeing an issue in the plugins, we
need to release that particular plugin (or all at once), to have the
trunk use the "fixed" patched plugins.
CORE depends on SNAPSHOT
A fix is quicker, since both artifacts are SNAPSHOTS.
But at the end, to be able to release the CORE, we also need a release
the plugins before that.
One more, since we, the Apache MyFaces/Trinidad community is in charge
of the PLUGINS and the CORE, there isn't that big issue in depending
on a SNAPSHOT, since it is "our" code.
What do you guys think?
Thanks,
Matthias
Re: versioning
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
On 2/15/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ok, ...
>
> so my plugins branch currently uses 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
> I'll merge that to trunk AFTER we actually released the plugins.
I think that technically this should happen now. 1.0.0 has
already branched, right? If someone checked in code to
the plugins, then we'd have some JARs floating around
that claim to be 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT, but contain bits that will
never appear in a 1.0.0 release.
> When merging to trunk the new version, I am also adding the released
> 1.0.0-incubating as the dependency. And change the CORE version to
> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
Are you saying that the trunk of trinidad will point at the released
version of the plugins, after the release? If so, +1.
-- Adam
>
> After that all I'll create a branch of CORE to prepare the release as well
>
> Sounds ok?
>
> -M
>
> On 2/13/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I go with 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
> >
> > thanks,
> > Matthias
> >
> > On 2/4/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sure, d'accord -
> > >
> > > just like the Tomcat folks do it, it doesn't make sense to keep the product
> > > versions fully at the spec or API versions. We should do the same for
> > > MyFaces and Tomahawk, by the way.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On 2/4/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > resent, because went to PMC list.....
> > > >
> > > > On 2/3/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > hi guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > currently our stuff has no real version number; only M1, which is
> > > > > almost nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should name the current Trinidad stuff 1.0.0 and put the m1
> > > > > (or incubator or incubating) to it, because of being incubator (for
> > > > > plugins and core).
> > > > >
> > > > > So something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > <version>incubator-m1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > > > >
> > > > > would be:
> > > > > <version>1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > > > >
> > > > > The "incubating" I saw, when looking at OpenJPA.
> > > > > (of course w/o SNAPSHOT, after we do a release)
> > > > >
> > > > > For the JSF 1.2 branch I suggest to use the version 2.0
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it doesn't make sense to follow the JSF version system in the
> > > > > version system of us.
> > > > > So, according to some blog entries, the next version for JSF (targeted
> > > > > for Java EE 6), will be called JSF 6. That would mean, if we stay
> > > > > tightly with their system we'd have a release or
> > > > >
> > > > > Trinidad 1.0 (mustn't it be 1.1 ??)
> > > > > Trinidad 1.2
> > > > > Trinidad 6
> > > > >
> > > > > which is really confusing (to me).
> > > > >
> > > > > So, to sum it up:
> > > > >
> > > > > -the current Trinidad stuff (based on JSF 1.1) will be 1.0.0
> > > > > -the *future* stuff (based on JSF 1.2) will be the 2.0.0 stuff
> > > > > -In case of JSF 6, we simply have a 3.0.0.
> > > > > -using "$version-incubating" instead of "$version-m1"
> > > > >
> > > > > Any comments ?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Matthias
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > > >
> > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > >
> > > > further stuff:
> > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://www.irian.at
> > >
> > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > Courses in English and German
> > >
> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
Re: versioning
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Ok, ...
so my plugins branch currently uses 1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
I'll merge that to trunk AFTER we actually released the plugins.
When merging to trunk the new version, I am also adding the released
1.0.0-incubating as the dependency. And change the CORE version to
1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
After that all I'll create a branch of CORE to prepare the release as well
Sounds ok?
-M
On 2/13/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> I go with 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>
> thanks,
> Matthias
>
> On 2/4/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sure, d'accord -
> >
> > just like the Tomcat folks do it, it doesn't make sense to keep the product
> > versions fully at the spec or API versions. We should do the same for
> > MyFaces and Tomahawk, by the way.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 2/4/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > resent, because went to PMC list.....
> > >
> > > On 2/3/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > hi guys,
> > > >
> > > > currently our stuff has no real version number; only M1, which is
> > > > almost nothing.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should name the current Trinidad stuff 1.0.0 and put the m1
> > > > (or incubator or incubating) to it, because of being incubator (for
> > > > plugins and core).
> > > >
> > > > So something like:
> > > >
> > > > <version>incubator-m1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > > >
> > > > would be:
> > > > <version>1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > > >
> > > > The "incubating" I saw, when looking at OpenJPA.
> > > > (of course w/o SNAPSHOT, after we do a release)
> > > >
> > > > For the JSF 1.2 branch I suggest to use the version 2.0
> > > >
> > > > I think it doesn't make sense to follow the JSF version system in the
> > > > version system of us.
> > > > So, according to some blog entries, the next version for JSF (targeted
> > > > for Java EE 6), will be called JSF 6. That would mean, if we stay
> > > > tightly with their system we'd have a release or
> > > >
> > > > Trinidad 1.0 (mustn't it be 1.1 ??)
> > > > Trinidad 1.2
> > > > Trinidad 6
> > > >
> > > > which is really confusing (to me).
> > > >
> > > > So, to sum it up:
> > > >
> > > > -the current Trinidad stuff (based on JSF 1.1) will be 1.0.0
> > > > -the *future* stuff (based on JSF 1.2) will be the 2.0.0 stuff
> > > > -In case of JSF 6, we simply have a 3.0.0.
> > > > -using "$version-incubating" instead of "$version-m1"
> > > >
> > > > Any comments ?
> > > >
> > > > -Matthias
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > >
> > > > further stuff:
> > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: versioning
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
I go with 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
thanks,
Matthias
On 2/4/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, d'accord -
>
> just like the Tomcat folks do it, it doesn't make sense to keep the product
> versions fully at the spec or API versions. We should do the same for
> MyFaces and Tomahawk, by the way.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 2/4/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > resent, because went to PMC list.....
> >
> > On 2/3/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > hi guys,
> > >
> > > currently our stuff has no real version number; only M1, which is
> > > almost nothing.
> > >
> > > I think we should name the current Trinidad stuff 1.0.0 and put the m1
> > > (or incubator or incubating) to it, because of being incubator (for
> > > plugins and core).
> > >
> > > So something like:
> > >
> > > <version>incubator-m1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > >
> > > would be:
> > > <version>1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > >
> > > The "incubating" I saw, when looking at OpenJPA.
> > > (of course w/o SNAPSHOT, after we do a release)
> > >
> > > For the JSF 1.2 branch I suggest to use the version 2.0
> > >
> > > I think it doesn't make sense to follow the JSF version system in the
> > > version system of us.
> > > So, according to some blog entries, the next version for JSF (targeted
> > > for Java EE 6), will be called JSF 6. That would mean, if we stay
> > > tightly with their system we'd have a release or
> > >
> > > Trinidad 1.0 (mustn't it be 1.1 ??)
> > > Trinidad 1.2
> > > Trinidad 6
> > >
> > > which is really confusing (to me).
> > >
> > > So, to sum it up:
> > >
> > > -the current Trinidad stuff (based on JSF 1.1) will be 1.0.0
> > > -the *future* stuff (based on JSF 1.2) will be the 2.0.0 stuff
> > > -In case of JSF 6, we simply have a 3.0.0.
> > > -using "$version-incubating" instead of "$version-m1"
> > >
> > > Any comments ?
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: versioning
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Sure, d'accord -
just like the Tomcat folks do it, it doesn't make sense to keep the product
versions fully at the spec or API versions. We should do the same for
MyFaces and Tomahawk, by the way.
regards,
Martin
On 2/4/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> resent, because went to PMC list.....
>
> On 2/3/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > hi guys,
> >
> > currently our stuff has no real version number; only M1, which is
> > almost nothing.
> >
> > I think we should name the current Trinidad stuff 1.0.0 and put the m1
> > (or incubator or incubating) to it, because of being incubator (for
> > plugins and core).
> >
> > So something like:
> >
> > <version>incubator-m1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> >
> > would be:
> > <version>1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT</version>
> >
> > The "incubating" I saw, when looking at OpenJPA.
> > (of course w/o SNAPSHOT, after we do a release)
> >
> > For the JSF 1.2 branch I suggest to use the version 2.0
> >
> > I think it doesn't make sense to follow the JSF version system in the
> > version system of us.
> > So, according to some blog entries, the next version for JSF (targeted
> > for Java EE 6), will be called JSF 6. That would mean, if we stay
> > tightly with their system we'd have a release or
> >
> > Trinidad 1.0 (mustn't it be 1.1 ??)
> > Trinidad 1.2
> > Trinidad 6
> >
> > which is really confusing (to me).
> >
> > So, to sum it up:
> >
> > -the current Trinidad stuff (based on JSF 1.1) will be 1.0.0
> > -the *future* stuff (based on JSF 1.2) will be the 2.0.0 stuff
> > -In case of JSF 6, we simply have a 3.0.0.
> > -using "$version-incubating" instead of "$version-m1"
> >
> > Any comments ?
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces