[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

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 at redhat.com>
>> To: "Alexey Kazakov" <akazakov at exadel.com>
>> Cc: <jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org>; "Sergey Vasilyev"  
>> <svasilyev at exadel.com>; "Sergey Smirnov" <sim at 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