[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

Thanks for that info!

Alexey - there we have our test ;)

/max

> RichFaces 3.2.1.CR4 is going to be released this Sunday. So, you can start
> with it.
> If you need to start early, you can use any SNAPSHOT (nightly build) that
> released after 05/07/2008
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen at redhat.com>
> To: "Sergey Smirnov" <sim at exadel.com>; "Alexey Kazakov"
> <akazakov at exadel.com>
> Cc: <jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org>; "Sergey Vasilyev"
> <svasilyev at exadel.com>; "Nikolay Belaevski" <nbelaevski at exadel.com>;
> "Alexander Smirnov" <asmirnov at exadel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?
>
>
>>> RichFaces 3.2.1 is expected at the middle of May.
>>
>> cool - any chance you could let us know when you have a build with the
>> updated TLD's
>> so we could start integrating ASAP ?
>>
>> /max
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen at redhat.com>
>>> To: "Sergey Smirnov" <sim at exadel.com>; "Alexey Kazakov"
>>> <akazakov at exadel.com>
>>> Cc: <jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org>; "Sergey Vasilyev"
>>> <svasilyev at exadel.com>; "Nikolay Belaevski" <nbelaevski at exadel.com>;
>>> "Alexander Smirnov" <asmirnov at exadel.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:11 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>