[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

Is there changes ? Then that needs reporting to Seam too. > 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >> >