+1 (see my comment about the >pre< jsf stuff) regards, gerhard
http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2011/10/5 Blake Sullivan <[email protected]> > I agree that we want to get rid of the impl stuff first, but even more > important would be to get rid of the last of the old UIX-based renderers and > the image generation code that we don't use. > > -- Blake Sullivan > > > On 10/5/11 6:18 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote: > >> Yeah, I'm not sure we know what third parties might depend on. I can tell >> you, for instance, which deprications, for instance, ADFFaces depends on. >> I can even remove those dependencies. But the nature of Trinidad and >> client's like ADFFaces is that the Trinidad implementations are exposed to >> end-users. >> >> Further, we've marked things as depricated if there is other functionality >> in JSF2 which replaces it. There have been some refactorings of API's which >> might provide "safer", "faster", or "more correct" implementations of >> certain functionality. That's not to say the old functions are wrong or >> that existing applications which use them cannot get away with using the old >> API's, it just means they SHOULD use the new implementations if they want to >> be "clean" and fully correct. >> >> I use the Java Date object as an example. It's an utterly ridiculous >> class, admittedly, but it works and is there for backward compatibility. >> There are much more "correct" implementations which address more issues >> such as different calendars and localization, but that does not make the >> date object.. "wrong". Trinidad has, in the past, removed or changed API's >> that just plain didn't work, but I'm not sure that's what we're talking >> about here. And certainly, I'm cool with removing the deprecated stuff from >> impl since nobody should be depending on it anyway. My concern is for end >> users of Trinidad and ADFFaces who may not have a voice or resources to >> monitor changes of this sort in the Trinidad developer community. >> >> I don't know, what do other people think? This is one of those things >> where I think the more voices the better. >> >> Scott >> >> On 10/05/2011 06:46 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> >>> My intention is not to break something, and I was ONLY talking about the >>> JSF-2 version of Trinidad. >>> If there is code which just makes no sense at all in JSF-2, then we >>> should in MY opinion kill this code. >>> If it doesn't make sense for Trinidad, then it is highly likely that it >>> also don't make sense for ADF anymore, right? >>> >>> IF some parts are still needed by some known 3rd party libs, then those >>> parts can of course remain. >>> >>> >>> But at the end of the day maintaining Trinidad will become more and more >>> problematic if we don't get rid of long time obsolete stuff. >>> >>> Again: only my personal opinion and experience. >>> >>> I assume that ADF also has a JSF-1 and a separate JSF-2 branch. All the >>> JSF-1 stuff would of course remain the way it is currently! >>> >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>>> From: Scott O'Bryan<[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:20 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup >>>> >>>> We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps >>>> is not a bad thing but traditionally we've taken a full vote before >>>> changing/removing API's in Trinidad because, doing so, incurs additional >>>> cost on the other frameworks which are using Trinidad as a foundation. >>>> >>>> Any company which provides Trinidad as a foundation for other framework >>>> code (like Oracle's ADFFaces) benefits from NOT breaking users of the >>>> framework every release and, frankly, I see a lot of value in keeping >>>> them around 'if possible'. >>>> >>>> Like I say, I'm not opposed to it, but I suppose I take more of a Java >>>> ZEN approach to deprecation of API's. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 10/05/2011 05:41 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. >>>>> >>>>> Trinidad-2 is for JSF-2 upwards exclusively, isn't? >>>>> >>>>> If so, then we can easily get rid of all the old dust which just >>>>> confuses >>>>> >>>> people. >>>> >>>>> Furthermore there seems to be a few compat problems with JSF-2 f:ajax >>>>> which >>>>> >>>> can only be resolved by carefully cleaning those areas up. >>>> >>>>> Just leave behind the old stuff. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> LieGrue, >>>>> strub >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________**__ >>>>>> From: Scott O'Bryan<[email protected]> >>>>>> To: MyFaces Development<dev@myfaces.**apache.org<[email protected]> >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 1:06 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well just because something is depth aged doesn't mean we can >>>>>> >>>>> remove it. It just means that an alternate means is suggested or >>>> something may >>>> not work exactly as expected if used. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> A Prime example is ExternalContextUtils. That guy has been around >>>>>> >>>>> since JSF 1.1. It contains lots of functionality that wasn't present >>>> in >>>> later versions of JSF, but now is. Use of the native objects should be >>>> encouraged, but there is also something to be said about older code >>>> being able >>>> to migrate easier to a later release. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Now I DO agree with removing the JSDoc and possibly the deprecations >>>>>> in >>>>>> >>>>> the impl, but I think it's important to keep any deprecations in the >>>> API for >>>> backward compatibility. >>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Gerhard >>>>>> >>>>> Petracek<gerhard.petracek@**gmail.com <[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> both - there are just two possibilities: those parts are really >>>>>> >>>>> deprecated and we remove them (and refactor the rest) or we can't >>>> remove >>>> them and the information (annotation and/or javadoc) isn't correct. >>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>>>> gerhard >>>>>>> http://www.irian.at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse - >>>>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and >>>>>>> Courses in English and German >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2011/10/5 Scott O'Bryan<[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gerhard, by deprivation hints, I'm assuming you mean the >>>>>>> >>>>>> javadoc deprecations and not the annotations, right? >>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:09 AM, Gerhard >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Petracek<gerhard.petracek@**gmail.com <[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> hi @ all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> there are still over 400 deprecations (via @Deprecated) and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> nearly 400 via javadoc (not all of them overlap). >>>> >>>>> a lot of them are in for a long time and some of them were >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> deprecated even before [1]. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> however, some parts are still used and can't be >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> removed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> imo we should do a cleanup or remove the deprecation hints. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>>>> gerhard >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/INFRA-1229<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1229> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.irian.at >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse - >>>>>>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and >>>>>>>>> Courses in English and German >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >
