RichFaces 3.2.1 is expected at the middle of May.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Sergey Smirnov" <sim(a)exadel.com>; "Alexey Kazakov" <akazakov(a)exadel.com&gt; 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&gt; 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&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 >> >> > > >