[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

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 >> >