[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

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@redhat.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:39 PM >> To: Alexey Kazakov; Sergey Smirnov >> Cc: jbosstools-dev(a)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(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "Alexey Kazakov" <akazakov(a)exadel.com&gt; >>>> Cc: <jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>; "Sergey Vasilyev" >>>> <svasilyev(a)exadel.com>; "Sergey Smirnov" <sim(a)exadel.com&gt; >>>> 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 >