[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

Is there changes ? Then that needs reporting to Seam too.

> BTW, Seam UI TLD 2.1 has 2.0 version :(
>
> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>> The number should only change if there are actual structural changes in  
>> the TLD.
>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Nick Belaevski wrote:
>>>
>>>> This field is now updated with Maven and before it was hardcoded and  
>>>> had to
>>>> be updated manually. So this problem should not affect us in the  
>>>> future.
>>>
>>> Having it be based on the maven properties is a good way to keep these  
>>> in sync.  Just so I understand when maven builds RichFaces it will get  
>>> it's version # from the same place that the TLD will?  So there is  
>>> only one place that changes both.  Does the "GA", or "SP1" effect this  
>>> version #?  If so it may cause issues as Sergey discussed below.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>  Nick Belaevski
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Max Rydahl Andersen [mailto:max.andersen at redhat.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:39 PM
>>>>> To: Alexey Kazakov; Sergey Smirnov
>>>>> Cc: jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org; Sergey Vasilyev; Nikolay  
>>>>> Belaevski;
>>>>> Alexander Smirnov; Jay Balunas
>>>>> Subject: Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> grr...I guess we don't have any other choice than make our 3.2.1  
>>>>> support
>>>>> be
>>>>> equal to 3.2.2 even though that is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would really appreciate if the richfaces team start keeping that  
>>>>> field
>>>>> updated
>>>>> correctly between releases when changes occur.
>>>>>
>>>>> /max
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sergey,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are some changes in TLDs in RichFaces 3.2.2 but the version  
>>>>>> of it
>>>>>> is still 3.2.1
>>>>>> So it painful for JBoss Tools team to provide proper support of both
>>>>>> versions (3.2.1 and 3.2.2) in Code Assist for Facelets.
>>>>>> We are going to refactor our Code Assist and use real TLD but not  
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> our special XML so it could help us to handle such mismatches
>>>>>> but now it is a real problem. So we have to choose one TLD and use  
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> for all 3.2.* richfaces libs in JBoss Tools 3.0.0CR1.
>>>>>> Max, should we replace 3.2.1 by 3.2.2 in our KB plug-in for  
>>>>>> 3.0.0CR1?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sergey Smirnov wrote:
>>>>>>> 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. 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- /max
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
/max