You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> on 2008/04/26 01:33:36 UTC
Result (Was Re: [VOTE] Add MyfacesBuilderPlugin to buildtools branch and use it on myfaces 1.1)
Hi
Thanks to all people who voted.
We got 7 +1
Grant Smith
Bruno Aranda
Sochor Zdeněk
Werner Punz
Gerald Müllan
Simon Kitching
Leonardo Uribe
and one +0
Mario Ivankovits
So MyfacesBuilderPlugin will be moved to trunk:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/myfaces-build-tools/trunk/maven2-plugins/myfaces-builder-plugin
Almost all points taken into accout by Andrew was implemented the last days,
only this points do not:
5. Ability to generate events and event listeners
6. Ability to add event type properties to components (addXListener,
getXListeners, etc.)
This points are trinidad specific stuff, so this should be done later.
On the wiki I have updated an xml file (inside the doc) that allows the
developer to have code completion in the doclets used by the plugin. This is
a work in progress, so the definition can change in the future.
regards
Leonardo Uribe
Re: Result (Was Re: [VOTE] Add MyfacesBuilderPlugin to buildtools branch and use it on myfaces 1.1)
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 2:03 PM, simon <si...@chello.at> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 19:39 -0500, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
> >
> > 2008/4/25 Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>:
> > Forgot to ask, this uses annotations for JSF >= 1.2 right?
>
> Yes.
>
> Well, actually it is user's choice, as both are supported. But I would
> imagine that people would choose real annotations when available.
>
> >
> > Also one more question, would Jsf* be better than JSF* for the
> > names
> > (ie JsfProperty vs JSFProperty)? Using all uppercase for an
> > acronym in
> > a java name is not conventional. Uppercase is usually reserved
> > for
> > starting a new, unabbreviated word.
> >
> > Yes, I have seen this too. The convention on xdoclet is use
> > namespace.prefix. I would like to use something like this:
> >
> > oam.Component
> > oam.Converter
> > oam.Validator
> > oam.RenderKit
> > oam.Renderer
> > oam.Property
> > oam.JspProperty
> > oam.JspTag
> > oam.JspAttribute
> > oam.Exclude
> >
> > or something like that. I would like to see what Simon thinks about
> > this, since he proposed the names at start and I don't know if he has
> > a particular reason about the choice of the tags.
> >
> > Simon: What do you think about this?
>
> I would suggest that it is nicer to have the javadoc tags and real
> annotations use the same names. A class obviously cannot have "oam." in
> the name. Possibly the real annotations could have the above names with
> the "oam." stripped off. However in at least some cases, the result
> seems a too-generic name to me. For example, @Property or @Component
> aren't immediately obvious when reading the code, and may clash with
> other libs (doesn't Seam have @Component already?).
>
> I think in Eclipse, using a dot name for a javadoc tag also makes the
> spelling-checker mark the name as a spelling mistake, which is mildly
> annoying.
>
> If people want JsfComponent rather than JSFComponent, I'm ok with that.
> But Sun went to the effort of actually deprecating getUrl() in favour of
> getURL(), so presumably the all-caps-for-acronyms is a java convention.
>
>
Looking the java api there is a lot of classes that when use an acronym at
start,
it put all upercase like this classes:
RMIConnector<file:///C:/jdk-1_5_0-doc/docs/api/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMIConnector.html>
RMISecurityException<file:///C:/jdk-1_5_0-doc/docs/api/java/rmi/RMISecurityException.html>
AWTEventMulticaster<file:///C:/jdk-1_5_0-doc/docs/api/java/awt/AWTEventMulticaster.html>
POAHelper<file:///C:/jdk-1_5_0-doc/docs/api/org/omg/PortableServer/POAHelper.html>
SQLException <file:///C:/jdk-1_5_0-doc/docs/api/java/sql/SQLException.html>
URLEncoder <file:///C:/jdk-1_5_0-doc/docs/api/java/net/URLEncoder.html>
So if we want that Doclets looks like annotations, the best is let the
convention as is.
Thanks Simon for make clear this point.
regards
Leonardo Uribe
>
> >
> > On myfaces 1.2 maybe annotations could not be used, because maybe it
> > breaks the TCK, but I'm not tested this yet, so its a point to take
> > into account. The actual code allows to use annotations and doclets
> > (we need to update annotation classes).
>
> I think it *very* unlikely that annotations would conflict with the TCK.
> These are source-retention annotations only, ie have absolutely no
> effect on the generated .class files.
>
> So if this plugin is used with myfaces 1.2.x, I would recommend real
> annotations be used and not doclet tags.
>
> Note that using qdox to scan source for annotations is actually *easier*
> than using APT for it, for several reasons. The APT tool is really ugly
> to use. So there is no reason to think of the myfaces-builder-plugin as
> having a "legacy" architecture just because it also supports doclet
> tags.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>
>
Re: Result (Was Re: [VOTE] Add MyfacesBuilderPlugin to buildtools
branch and use it on myfaces 1.1)
Posted by simon <si...@chello.at>.
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 19:39 -0500, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
>
> 2008/4/25 Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>:
> Forgot to ask, this uses annotations for JSF >= 1.2 right?
Yes.
Well, actually it is user's choice, as both are supported. But I would
imagine that people would choose real annotations when available.
>
> Also one more question, would Jsf* be better than JSF* for the
> names
> (ie JsfProperty vs JSFProperty)? Using all uppercase for an
> acronym in
> a java name is not conventional. Uppercase is usually reserved
> for
> starting a new, unabbreviated word.
>
> Yes, I have seen this too. The convention on xdoclet is use
> namespace.prefix. I would like to use something like this:
>
> oam.Component
> oam.Converter
> oam.Validator
> oam.RenderKit
> oam.Renderer
> oam.Property
> oam.JspProperty
> oam.JspTag
> oam.JspAttribute
> oam.Exclude
>
> or something like that. I would like to see what Simon thinks about
> this, since he proposed the names at start and I don't know if he has
> a particular reason about the choice of the tags.
>
> Simon: What do you think about this?
I would suggest that it is nicer to have the javadoc tags and real
annotations use the same names. A class obviously cannot have "oam." in
the name. Possibly the real annotations could have the above names with
the "oam." stripped off. However in at least some cases, the result
seems a too-generic name to me. For example, @Property or @Component
aren't immediately obvious when reading the code, and may clash with
other libs (doesn't Seam have @Component already?).
I think in Eclipse, using a dot name for a javadoc tag also makes the
spelling-checker mark the name as a spelling mistake, which is mildly
annoying.
If people want JsfComponent rather than JSFComponent, I'm ok with that.
But Sun went to the effort of actually deprecating getUrl() in favour of
getURL(), so presumably the all-caps-for-acronyms is a java convention.
>
> On myfaces 1.2 maybe annotations could not be used, because maybe it
> breaks the TCK, but I'm not tested this yet, so its a point to take
> into account. The actual code allows to use annotations and doclets
> (we need to update annotation classes).
I think it *very* unlikely that annotations would conflict with the TCK.
These are source-retention annotations only, ie have absolutely no
effect on the generated .class files.
So if this plugin is used with myfaces 1.2.x, I would recommend real
annotations be used and not doclet tags.
Note that using qdox to scan source for annotations is actually *easier*
than using APT for it, for several reasons. The APT tool is really ugly
to use. So there is no reason to think of the myfaces-builder-plugin as
having a "legacy" architecture just because it also supports doclet
tags.
Regards,
Simon
Re: Result (Was Re: [VOTE] Add MyfacesBuilderPlugin to buildtools branch and use it on myfaces 1.1)
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
2008/4/25 Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>:
> Forgot to ask, this uses annotations for JSF >= 1.2 right?
>
> Also one more question, would Jsf* be better than JSF* for the names
> (ie JsfProperty vs JSFProperty)? Using all uppercase for an acronym in
> a java name is not conventional. Uppercase is usually reserved for
> starting a new, unabbreviated word.
Yes, I have seen this too. The convention on xdoclet is use
namespace.prefix. I would like to use something like this:
oam.Component
oam.Converter
oam.Validator
oam.RenderKit
oam.Renderer
oam.Property
oam.JspProperty
oam.JspTag
oam.JspAttribute
oam.Exclude
or something like that. I would like to see what Simon thinks about this,
since he proposed the names at start and I don't know if he has a particular
reason about the choice of the tags.
Simon: What do you think about this?
On myfaces 1.2 maybe annotations could not be used, because maybe it breaks
the TCK, but I'm not tested this yet, so its a point to take into account.
The actual code allows to use annotations and doclets (we need to update
annotation classes).
regards
Leonardo Uribe
>
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> 2008/4/25 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi
> >
> > Thanks to all people who voted.
> >
> > We got 7 +1
> >
> > Grant Smith
> > Bruno Aranda
> > Sochor Zdeněk
> > Werner Punz
> > Gerald Müllan
> > Simon Kitching
> > Leonardo Uribe
> >
> > and one +0
> >
> > Mario Ivankovits
> >
> > So MyfacesBuilderPlugin will be moved to trunk:
> >
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/myfaces-build-tools/trunk/maven2-plugins/myfaces-builder-plugin
> >
> > Almost all points taken into accout by Andrew was implemented the last
> days,
> > only this points do not:
> >
> > 5. Ability to generate events and event listeners
> > 6. Ability to add event type properties to components (addXListener,
> > getXListeners, etc.)
> >
> > This points are trinidad specific stuff, so this should be done later.
> >
> > On the wiki I have updated an xml file (inside the doc) that allows the
> > developer to have code completion in the doclets used by the plugin. This
> is
> > a work in progress, so the definition can change in the future.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Leonardo Uribe
> >
>
Re: Result (Was Re: [VOTE] Add MyfacesBuilderPlugin to buildtools branch and use it on myfaces 1.1)
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
Forgot to ask, this uses annotations for JSF >= 1.2 right?
Also one more question, would Jsf* be better than JSF* for the names
(ie JsfProperty vs JSFProperty)? Using all uppercase for an acronym in
a java name is not conventional. Uppercase is usually reserved for
starting a new, unabbreviated word.
Thanks,
Andrew
2008/4/25 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
> Hi
>
> Thanks to all people who voted.
>
> We got 7 +1
>
> Grant Smith
> Bruno Aranda
> Sochor Zdeněk
> Werner Punz
> Gerald Müllan
> Simon Kitching
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> and one +0
>
> Mario Ivankovits
>
> So MyfacesBuilderPlugin will be moved to trunk:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/myfaces-build-tools/trunk/maven2-plugins/myfaces-builder-plugin
>
> Almost all points taken into accout by Andrew was implemented the last days,
> only this points do not:
>
> 5. Ability to generate events and event listeners
> 6. Ability to add event type properties to components (addXListener,
> getXListeners, etc.)
>
> This points are trinidad specific stuff, so this should be done later.
>
> On the wiki I have updated an xml file (inside the doc) that allows the
> developer to have code completion in the doclets used by the plugin. This is
> a work in progress, so the definition can change in the future.
>
> regards
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>