[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

> We have never been change this number inside tld. It was 1.2 from the very
> first version. Mainly, because it does not make any since for run-time. 

Any tools and introspection tool would like to have it ;)

> We
> store the true version in the manifest.mf located close to tlds files inside
> the META-INF instead.
> Actually, the standard  limits the content of this tag. It must only numbers
> divided by up to 3 dots. So, we cannot put the exact version there like
> 3.2.0.GA or 3.2.0.SP1

Just having the 3.2.0 would be sufficient for us since what comes after the 4th dot should
be irelevant.

> So, starting with RichFaces 3.2.1, we will turn CDK generator to generate
> three number divided by dots. It is not ideal, but close to.

Its way better ;)

When is 3.2.1 expected ?

> In general, we can enhance CDK to generate not only TLD, but the meta-data
> for code extended assist. In this way, JBDS just needs to take this
> meta-file from the jar file instead of the place it takes now. It will help
> to migrate from version to version more smoothly and without extra work from
> the JBDS team.

sounds like something we should investigate and do it in a way other lib's could use too.

Kazakov - comments ?

/max

>
> I told with Alexey about this feature, but looks like this topic was just
> forgotten between the other more actual themes on that moment.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen at redhat.com>
> To: "Alexey Kazakov" <akazakov at exadel.com>
> Cc: <jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org>; "Sergey Vasilyev"
> <svasilyev at exadel.com>; "Sergey Smirnov" <sim at exadel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?
>
>
>>>> How long time would it take to add code completion support for RF 3.2 ?
>>>>
>>> If we want to have RF 3.1.x by default (if we can't recognize the
>>> version of lib) then there will be a problem.
>>
>> But isn't the schemas distinct enough to always recognize the correct
>> version ?
>>
>> Note: if we can't recognize the version i'm probably fine by falling back
>> to 3.2 by default.
>> btw. why is hard to set a specific version as the default ? Is it
>> hardcoded to take the latest version as default or ?
>>
>>> Richaces TLD version tag has not been updated since 1.2.
>>> So we are not able to tell one from the other.
>>
>> Are you telling me the richfaces team does not update their TLD's ?
>> I thought the CDK where supposed to make that "easy" ?
>>
>> I've cc'ed in Sergey S. to get his opinion on how we should go about
>> supporting
>> updates to richfaces if the libraries does not maintain their schema
>> version id's..?
>>
>>> It would take about one day to provide code completion for RF 3.2 but
>>> only default lib will work.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> /max
>
>