[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

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@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 >>> >> > > >