[jbosstools-dev] Re: Richfaces 3.2 ?

[Alexey Kazakov]

Yes, there are some new components.

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> 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 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>