[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?
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.
Any tools and introspection tool would like to have it ;)
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
Just having the 3.2.0 would be sufficient for us since what comes after the 4th dot
should
be irelevant.
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.
Its way better ;)
When is 3.2.1 expected ?
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.
sounds like something we should investigate and do it in a way other lib's could use
too.
Kazakov - comments ?
/max
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