Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?
by Max Rydahl Andersen
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>
>>>>> To: "Alexey Kazakov" <akazakov(a)exadel.com>
>>>>> Cc: <jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>; "Sergey Vasilyev"
>>>>> <svasilyev(a)exadel.com>; "Sergey Smirnov" <sim(a)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
16 years
