Thanks for that info!
Alexey - there we have our test ;)
/max
RichFaces 3.2.1.CR4 is going to be released this Sunday. So, you can
start
with it.
If you need to start early, you can use any SNAPSHOT (nightly build) that
released after 05/07/2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen(a)redhat.com>
To: "Sergey Smirnov" <sim(a)exadel.com>; "Alexey Kazakov"
<akazakov(a)exadel.com>
Cc: <jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>; "Sergey Vasilyev"
<svasilyev(a)exadel.com>; "Nikolay Belaevski"
<nbelaevski(a)exadel.com>;
"Alexander Smirnov" <asmirnov(a)exadel.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?
>> RichFaces 3.2.1 is expected at the middle of May.
>
> cool - any chance you could let us know when you have a build with the
> updated TLD's
> so we could start integrating ASAP ?
>
> /max
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen(a)redhat.com>
>> To: "Sergey Smirnov" <sim(a)exadel.com>; "Alexey
Kazakov"
>> <akazakov(a)exadel.com>
>> Cc: <jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>; "Sergey Vasilyev"
>> <svasilyev(a)exadel.com>; "Nikolay Belaevski"
<nbelaevski(a)exadel.com>;
>> "Alexander Smirnov" <asmirnov(a)exadel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:11 PM
>> Subject: 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>