[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

[Alexey Kazakov]

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 at redhat.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:39 PM
>>>> To: Alexey Kazakov; Sergey Smirnov
>>>> Cc: jbosstools-dev at 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 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
>>>
>>
>
>
>