Nabble - Shale - Dev

FYI Fwd: [TEST] Shale Test copied

2009-05-21T13:54:59Z

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>
Date: Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Subject: [TEST] Shale Test copied
To: MyFaces Development <dev@...>

hi,

as Shale has *retired* (see [1]) I finally... copied the test
framework code over to myfaces (as already
discussed before).

Folder:
/myfaces/test/trunk

I think we all (myfaces committers) should be able to commit to the
folder... if not, let me know...

I will do the package renaming etc, so that we can continue the
success story of the shale testing
code (and have the right enhancements for MyFaces 2.0)

-Matthias

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-2

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Shale To Move To the Attic

2009-04-28T07:27:41Z

This is a heads up for the Shale user community that the Shale PMC has
voted to move the project to the Attic. This means that the Shale
developers (more formally its Project Management Committee) have voted
to retire Shale and move the responsibility for its oversight over to
the Attic project.

The MyFaces community has expressed interest in continuing development
of the Shale-Test module and the Shale PMC will work with MyFaces to
migrate this piece of the codebase.. Look for further announcements to
that regard in the near future.

You can read more about the Apache Attic at http://attic.apache.org.

You can follow the progress of the move at

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-2 if you so wish.

On behalf of the Apache Shale PMC, Thanks!

Greg Reddin

Re: moving the testing facility to myfaces ?

2009-04-08T08:30:03Z

any outcome ?

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Gary%20VanMatre <gvanmatre@...> wrote:

>
>>From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
>>On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Antonio Petrelli
>>><antonio.petrelli@...> wrote:
>>> 2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:
>>>> we talked about this long time ago. With the ongoing DEV of MyFaces 2.0
>>>> we may finally want to move over the testing bits to myfaces.
>>>>
>>>> What is the thought about it ?
>>>>
>>>> If yes, I'd move over the bits and do a release of the testing
>>>> facility BEFORE that move.
>>>
>>> This might be a stupid question, but why don't you simply "copy" it?
>>> It's an exchange between Apache projects, after all.
>>
>>namespace clash ?
>>org.apache.myfaces VS
>>org.apache.shale
>>
>>and it would be nice for the still existing Shale users to have a
>>release of the bits.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We should check with a member of the board to find out that the correct
>
> protocol is for a move between projects. Let me do that first before we
>
> continue discussions.
>
>
>
>
>
> Gary
>
>
>>
>>-M
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: moving the testing facility to myfaces ?

2009-02-26T08:50:56Z

>From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
>On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Antonio Petrelli
>><antonio.petrelli@...> wrote:
>> 2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:
>>> we talked about this long time ago. With the ongoing DEV of MyFaces 2.0
>>> we may finally want to move over the testing bits to myfaces.
>>>
>>> What is the thought about it ?
>>>
>>> If yes, I'd move over the bits and do a release of the testing
>>> facility BEFORE that move.
>>
>> This might be a stupid question, but why don't you simply "copy" it?
>> It's an exchange between Apache projects, after all.
>
>namespace clash ?
>org.apache.myfaces VS
>org.apache.shale
>
>and it would be nice for the still existing Shale users to have a
>release of the bits.

We should check with a member of the board to find out that the correct

protocol is for a move between projects. Let me do that first before we

continue discussions.

Gary

>
>-M
>>
>> Antonio
>>

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: moving the testing facility to myfaces ?

2009-02-26T02:33:54Z

2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:

> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Antonio Petrelli
> <antonio.petrelli@...> wrote:
>> 2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Antonio Petrelli
>>> <antonio.petrelli@...> wrote:
>>>> 2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:
>>>>> we talked about this long time ago. With the ongoing DEV of MyFaces 2.0
>>>>> we may finally want to move over the testing bits to myfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the thought about it ?
>>>>>
>>>>> If yes, I'd move over the bits and do a release of the testing
>>>>> facility BEFORE that move.
>>>>
>>>> This might be a stupid question, but why don't you simply "copy" it?
>>>> It's an exchange between Apache projects, after all.
>>>
>>> namespace clash ?
>>> org.apache.myfaces VS
>>> org.apache.shale
>>
>> When I said "copy" I meant copying the code, but adapted to MyFaces,
>> thus renaming packages.
>>
>>> and it would be nice for the still existing Shale users to have a
>>> release of the bits.
>>
>> IMHO you should be a bit "egoistic". If you are using Shale Test, ok
>> go on to release it.
>
> I am a user (in MyFaces and corp. land), so depending on the outcome,
> I will go ahead with the Shale-(Test-)Release

Perfect! So Shale is not-so-dead after all :-D

Antonio

Re: moving the testing facility to myfaces ?

2009-02-26T02:16:36Z

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Antonio Petrelli
<antonio.petrelli@...> wrote:

> 2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Antonio Petrelli
>> <antonio.petrelli@...> wrote:
>>> 2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:
>>>> we talked about this long time ago. With the ongoing DEV of MyFaces 2.0
>>>> we may finally want to move over the testing bits to myfaces.
>>>>
>>>> What is the thought about it ?
>>>>
>>>> If yes, I'd move over the bits and do a release of the testing
>>>> facility BEFORE that move.
>>>
>>> This might be a stupid question, but why don't you simply "copy" it?
>>> It's an exchange between Apache projects, after all.
>>
>> namespace clash ?
>> org.apache.myfaces VS
>> org.apache.shale
>
> When I said "copy" I meant copying the code, but adapted to MyFaces,
> thus renaming packages.
>
>> and it would be nice for the still existing Shale users to have a
>> release of the bits.
>
> IMHO you should be a bit "egoistic". If you are using Shale Test, ok
> go on to release it.

I am a user (in MyFaces and corp. land), so depending on the outcome,
I will go ahead with the Shale-(Test-)Release

> But if you don't use it go ahead with the copy.
> I know that it's hard to admit that a project is dead, but it is :-(
>
> Antonio
>

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: moving the testing facility to myfaces ?

2009-02-26T02:12:58Z

2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:

> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Antonio Petrelli
> <antonio.petrelli@...> wrote:
>> 2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:
>>> we talked about this long time ago. With the ongoing DEV of MyFaces 2.0
>>> we may finally want to move over the testing bits to myfaces.
>>>
>>> What is the thought about it ?
>>>
>>> If yes, I'd move over the bits and do a release of the testing
>>> facility BEFORE that move.
>>
>> This might be a stupid question, but why don't you simply "copy" it?
>> It's an exchange between Apache projects, after all.
>
> namespace clash ?
> org.apache.myfaces VS
> org.apache.shale

When I said "copy" I meant copying the code, but adapted to MyFaces,
thus renaming packages.

> and it would be nice for the still existing Shale users to have a
> release of the bits.

IMHO you should be a bit "egoistic". If you are using Shale Test, ok
go on to release it.
But if you don't use it go ahead with the copy.
I know that it's hard to admit that a project is dead, but it is :-(

Antonio

Re: moving the testing facility to myfaces ?

2009-02-26T02:10:26Z

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...> wrote:

and, when the myfaces community would continue to develop this
we would have two different code bases.
Or do you think that there is much progress here on that shale
(testing) framework?
-M

>
> namespace clash ?
> org.apache.myfaces VS
> org.apache.shale
>
> and it would be nice for the still existing Shale users to have a
> release of the bits.
>
> -M
>
>
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: moving the testing facility to myfaces ?

2009-02-26T02:02:35Z

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Antonio Petrelli
<antonio.petrelli@...> wrote:

> 2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:
>> we talked about this long time ago. With the ongoing DEV of MyFaces 2.0
>> we may finally want to move over the testing bits to myfaces.
>>
>> What is the thought about it ?
>>
>> If yes, I'd move over the bits and do a release of the testing
>> facility BEFORE that move.
>
> This might be a stupid question, but why don't you simply "copy" it?
> It's an exchange between Apache projects, after all.

namespace clash ?
org.apache.myfaces VS
org.apache.shale

and it would be nice for the still existing Shale users to have a
release of the bits.

-M

>
> Antonio
>

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: moving the testing facility to myfaces ?

2009-02-26T00:16:51Z

2009/2/26 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...>:
> we talked about this long time ago. With the ongoing DEV of MyFaces 2.0
> we may finally want to move over the testing bits to myfaces.
>
> What is the thought about it ?
>
> If yes, I'd move over the bits and do a release of the testing
> facility BEFORE that move.

This might be a stupid question, but why don't you simply "copy" it?
It's an exchange between Apache projects, after all.

Antonio

moving the testing facility to myfaces ?

2009-02-25T23:39:44Z

Hi,

we talked about this long time ago. With the ongoing DEV of MyFaces 2.0
we may finally want to move over the testing bits to myfaces.

What is the thought about it ?

If yes, I'd move over the bits and do a release of the testing
facility BEFORE that move.

-Matthias

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: Current Status

2009-02-24T12:56:54Z

Nick,

I seems to have kinda stangnated with the anticipation of features it
covers appearing in other projects or upcoming JSRs.

Too be honest, I've had to move projects away from shale recently to
support the current versions of jsf and rich faces.
Spring 2.5 supports annotations and can provide similar functionality
to shale-tiger. Unfortunately it doesn't have the "preprocess",
"prerender" lifecycle of Shale's view controller but it at least has
the init and destroy.

Shale-test framework is still useful and the dialog framework should still work.

regards,
Lionel

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Nick Alexander <nicka@...> wrote:

> I am interested in using Shale for a enterprise voice application, but am concerned about the lack of active development on the project.
> Our company would be happy to contribute to the project but we need to know that we are not the only drivers.
>
> We are particularly interesting the dialog management
>
>
> Please provide comments
>
> Nick Alexander
>

Current Status

2009-02-24T07:42:39Z

I am interested in using Shale for a enterprise voice application, but am concerned about the lack of active development on the project.
Our company would be happy to contribute to the project but we need to know that we are not the only drivers.

We are particularly interesting the dialog management

Please provide comments

Nick Alexander

Registration for ApacheCon Europe 2009 is now open!

2009-01-27T08:13:52Z

ApacheCon EU 2009 registration is now open!
23-27 March -- Mövenpick Hotel, Amsterdam, Netherlands
http://www.eu.apachecon.com/
================================

Registration for ApacheCon Europe 2009 is now open - act before early
bird prices expire 6 February. Remember to book a room at the Mövenpick
and use the Registration Code: Special package attendees for the
conference registration, and get 150 Euros off your full conference
registration.

Lower Costs - Thanks to new VAT tax laws, our prices this year are 19%
lower than last year in Europe! We've also negotiated a Mövenpick rate
of a maximum of 155 Euros per night for attendees in our room block.

Quick Links:

http://xrl.us/aceu09sp See the schedule
http://xrl.us/aceu09hp Get your hotel room
http://xrl.us/aceu09rp Register for the conference

Other important notes:

- Geeks for Geeks is a new mini-track where we can feature advanced
technical content from project committers. And our Hackathon on Monday
and Tuesday is open to all attendees - be sure to check it off in your
registration.

- The Call for Papers for ApacheCon US 2009, held 2-6 November
2009 in Oakland, CA, is open through 28 February, so get your
submissions in now. This ApacheCon will feature special events with
some of the ASF's original founders in celebration of the 10th
anniversary of The Apache Software Foundation.

http://www.us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/

- Interested in sponsoring the ApacheCon conferences? There are plenty
of sponsor packages available - please contact Delia Frees at
delia@... for further information.

======================================================
ApacheCon EU 2008: A week of Open Source at it's best!

Hackathon - open to all! | Geeks for Geeks | Lunchtime Sessions
In-Depth Trainings | Multi-Track Sessions | BOFs | Business Panel
Lightning Talks | Receptions | Fast Feather Track | Expo... and more!

- Shane Curcuru, on behalf of
Noirin Shirley, Conference Lead,
and the whole ApacheCon Europe 2009 Team
http://www.eu.apachecon.com/ 23-27 March -- Amsterdam, Netherlands

[Travel Assistance] Applications for ApacheCon EU 2009 - Now Open

2009-01-23T07:11:17Z

The Travel Assistance Committee is now accepting applications for those
wanting to attend ApacheCon EU 2009 between the 23rd and 27th March 2009
in Amsterdam.

The Travel Assistance Committee is looking for people who would like to
be able to attend ApacheCon EU 2009 who need some financial support in
order to get there. There are very few places available and the criteria
is high, that aside applications are open to all open source developers
who feel that their attendance would benefit themselves, their
project(s), the ASF or open source in general.

Financial assistance is available for travel, accommodation and entrance
fees either in full or in part, depending on circumstances. It is
intended that all our ApacheCon events are covered, so it may be prudent
for those in the United States or Asia to wait until an event closer to
them comes up - you are all welcome to apply for ApacheCon EU of course,
but there must be compelling reasons for you to attend an event further
away that your home location for your application to be considered above
those closer to the event location.

More information can be found on the main Apache website at
http://www.apache.org/travel/index.html - where you will also find a
link to the online application form.

Time is very tight for this event, so applications are open now and will
end on the 4th February 2009 - to give enough time for travel
arrangements to be made.

Good luck to all those that apply.

Regards,
The Travel Assistance Committee
--

Deploying the site after a release

2009-01-08T13:06:01Z

Documenting the way I deployed the site after v1.0.4:

1) Check out the release tag, build and deploy site
2) On p.a.o, create a new directory for the release (in the above
case, it was called '1.0.4', might want to keep that pattern)
3) Copy the site down one level to the directory created in 2
4) Check out the trunk, update download and other sections as needed
to reflect latest release, build and deploy site

We might need to make the "Release Documentation" section in the site
menu contain absolute URLs for this to work smoothly going forward.

-Rahul

Re: Splitting shale-test into JSF specific projects (was Re: [1.1.0] Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException)

2008-12-10T07:38:01Z

>From: Paul Spencer
>To: dev@...
>Sent: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:45:47 +0000 (UTC)
>Subject: Splitting shale-test into JSF specific projects (was Re: [1.1.0] Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException)
>
>
>On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Gary%20VanMatre wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
>> I was thinking that we might need to break JSF 1.1 and 1.2 support
>> into two projects so that we could better configure the dependencies
>> and binaries.  If we did that, we could still have JSF 1.2 test
>> build on JSF 1.1 test.  That might make the release simpler too?
>>
>>> Paul Spencer
>> Gary
>>
>
>Are you suggesting the following project layout?
>
> shale-test
> shale-test-common - Build using using JDK 1.4
> shale-test-jsf1_1 - Build using JDK 1.4
> shale-test-jsf1_2 - Build using JDK 1.5
>
>

+1 That sounds good to me.

>Paul Spencer

Splitting shale-test into JSF specific projects (was Re: [1.1.0] Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException)

2008-12-10T02:45:47Z

On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Gary%20VanMatre wrote:

>
>
<snip>
> I was thinking that we might need to break JSF 1.1 and 1.2 support
> into two projects so that we could better configure the dependencies
> and binaries. If we did that, we could still have JSF 1.2 test
> build on JSF 1.1 test. That might make the release simpler too?
>
>> Paul Spencer
> Gary
>

Are you suggesting the following project layout?

shale-test
shale-test-common - Build using using JDK 1.4
shale-test-jsf1_1 - Build using JDK 1.4
shale-test-jsf1_2 - Build using JDK 1.5

Paul Spencer

Re: [1.1.0] Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException

2008-12-09T12:27:58Z

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Paul Spencer <paulsp@...> wrote:

> I am building Shale 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT with JDK 1.5.0_16-b06-284. The test on
> Shale-Core are failing with the following error:
>
> testPristine(org.apache.shale.util.TokenProcessorTestCase) Time elapsed:
> 0.038 sec <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javax/faces/application/ViewExpiredException
> at
> org.apache.shale.test.mock.lifecycle.MockLifecycle.<init>(MockLifecycle.java:52)
> at
> org.apache.shale.test.mock.lifecycle.MockLifecycleFactory.<init>(MockLifecycleFactory.java:45)
>
> The test for Shale-Core uses JSF 1.1. I suspect that Shale-Test is expecting
> a JSF 1.2 implementation and failing since 1.1 is used.
>
> Ideas?

I don't have an answer for you but I will verify that I experience the
same problem.

Greg

Re: [1.1.0] Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException

2008-12-09T10:08:08Z

>From: Paul Spencer
>To: dev@...
>Sent: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:20:44 +0000 (UTC)
>Subject: [1.1.0] Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException
>
>I am building Shale 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT with JDK 1.5.0_16-b06-284. The test
>on Shale-Core are failing with the following error:
>.
>testPristine(org.apache.shale.util.TokenProcessorTestCase)  Time
>elapsed: 0.038 sec  <<< ERROR!
>java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javax/faces/application/
>ViewExpiredException
> at
>org
>.apache
>.shale.test.mock.lifecycle.MockLifecycle.(MockLifecycle.java:52)
> at
>org .apache .shale .test .mock.lifecycle.MockLifecycleFactory.(MockLifecycleFactory.java: 45)
>
>The test for Shale-Core uses JSF 1.1. I suspect that Shale-Test is
>expecting a JSF 1.2 implementation and failing since 1.1 is used.
>
>Ideas?
>

I was thinking that we might need to break JSF 1.1 and 1.2 support into two projects so that we could better configure the dependencies and binaries. If we did that, we could still have JSF 1.2 test build on JSF 1.1 test. That might make the release simpler too?

>Paul Spencer
Gary

[1.1.0] Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException

2008-12-09T04:20:44Z

I am building Shale 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT with JDK 1.5.0_16-b06-284. The test
on Shale-Core are failing with the following error:

testPristine(org.apache.shale.util.TokenProcessorTestCase) Time
elapsed: 0.038 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javax/faces/application/
ViewExpiredException
at
org
.apache
.shale.test.mock.lifecycle.MockLifecycle.<init>(MockLifecycle.java:52)
at
org
.apache
.shale
.test
.mock.lifecycle.MockLifecycleFactory.<init>(MockLifecycleFactory.java:
45)

The test for Shale-Core uses JSF 1.1. I suspect that Shale-Test is
expecting a JSF 1.2 implementation and failing since 1.1 is used.

Ideas?

Paul Spencer

[Announce] Call For Papers opens for ApacheCon US 2009

2008-11-10T08:38:59Z

If you have only 30 seconds to read this;

Join us in celebrating the ASF's 10th Anniversary at ApacheCon!

The Call for Papers is now open for ApacheCon US 2009, taking place 2-6
November in Oakland, California. Proposals are being accepted at
http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/cfp/ and can be revised at anytime until
the submissions closing deadline of 28 February 2009.

In addition, sponsorship opportunities for both ApacheCon EU 2009/Amsterdam
and ApacheCon US 2009/Oakland are available. Please contact Delia Frees at
delia@... for further information.

Please, read on...

*******

ApacheCon Celebrates the ASF's 10th Anniversary in Oakland, California,
2-6 November 2009

Call for Papers Opens for ApacheCon US 2009

The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) invites submissions to its official
user and developer conference, taking place 2-6 November 2009 at the Oakland
Convention Center and Marriott Hotel. ApacheCon serves as a forum for
showcasing the ASF's latest projects, members, and community initiatives.
Offering unparalleled educational opportunities, ApacheCon's presentations,
hands-on trainings, and sessions address key technology, development,
business/community, and licensing issues in Open Source.

The wide range of activities offered at ApacheCon promotes the exchange of
ideas amongst ASF Members, committers, innovators, developers, vendors, and
users interested in the future of Open Source technology. The conference
program includes peer-reviewed sessions, trainings/workshops, and select
invited keynote presentations and speakers.

Conference Themes and Topics

Building on ten years of success, ApacheCon returns to the Bay Area for the
10th anniversary of the Apache Software Foundation. Comprising some of the
most active and recognized developers in the Open Source community,
ApacheCon provides an influential platform for dialogue between Open Source
developers and users, traversing a wide range of ideas, expertise, and
personalities.

ApacheCon welcomes submissions across many fields, geographic locations, and
areas of development. The breadth of the Apache community lends itself to
conference content that is somewhat loosely-structured, with common themes
of interest addressing groundbreaking technologies and emerging trends, best
practices (from development to deployment), case studies and lessons learned
(tips, tools, and tricks). In addition, ApacheCon will continue to offer its
highly popular, two-day intensive trainings; certifications of completion
will be distributed to those who fulfill all the training requirements.

Topics appropriate for submission are manifold, and may include but are not
restricted to: Apache HTTP server (installation, configuration, migration,
and more); ASF-wide projects (including Lucene, Hadoop, Jackrabbit, and
Maven); Scripting languages and dynamic content (such as Java, Perl, Python,
Ruby, XSL, and PHP); Security and e-commerce (performance tuning, load
balancing and high availability); New technologies (including broader
initiatives such as Web Services and Web 2.0); ASF-Incubated projects (such
as Sling, UIMA, and Shindig); and Business/Community issues (Open Source
driven business models, open development, enterprise adoption, and more).

Submission Guidelines

Submissions must include; – Session title - Speaker name - Speaker biography
- Session description - Format and duration - Audience expertise level

Full details are available online on the CFP page at [WWW]
http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/cfp/

Types of Presentations; - Trainings/Workshops - General Sessions - Case
Studies/Industry Profiles - Corporate Showcases & Demonstrations - Fast
Feather (short) sessions - Birds of a Feather discussions - Invited
Keynotes/Panels/Speakers

Pre-Conference Trainings/Workshops

Held on the first two days of the conference (2-3 November 2009), ApacheCon
trainings are available at a registration fee beyond the regular conference
fee. Proposals may be submitted for half-day (3 hours), full-day (6 hours),
or two-day (12 hours) training sessions. These proposed tutorials should be
aimed at providing in-depth, hands-on development experience or related
continuing education. Training submissions are welcome at beginner,
intermediate, and expert levels.

General Sessions include presentations on practical development
applications, insight into high-interest projects, best practices and key
advances, overcoming implementation challenges, and industry innovations.
Especially welcome are submissions that extend participants' understanding
the role of ASF projects and their influence on the Open Source community at
large. General Sessions are scheduled for 50 minutes and are accessible to
all conference delegates.

Case Study/Industry Profile

Practitioners are invited to submit presentations that focus on how
implementing particular ASF technologies led to improved products/solutions,
service offerings, changes in work practices, among other successes.
Proposals that highlight overcoming interesting challenges in application
design and developing innovative frameworks using multiple ASF projects are
particularly encouraged. NOTE: Marketing-oriented submissions aimed at
promoting specific organizations or products will not be accepted.

Invited Keynotes/Panels/Speakers

Each conference the ApacheCon Planning team invites select presenters
dealing with engaging, dialectical, and challenging subjects to present in
keynote and/or panel formats. Topics include cutting-edge technology
development, industry leadership, hot or emerging trends, opinions on
controversial issues, insight on technology paradigms, and contrasting
viewpoints in complementary professional areas. Those interested in
suggesting a candidate for an invited speaker opportunity should submit a
brief proposal with the speaker's name, affiliation, background/bio,
overview of topics of interest, and contact information.

Birds of a Feather (BoF) sessions and Fast Feather Track talks are selected
by separate processes, nearer to the beginning of the conference.

Proposals are now being accepted at http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/cfp/
and can be revised at anytime until the submissions closing deadline of 28
February 2009.

In addition, sponsorship opportunities for both ApacheCon EU 2009/Amsterdam
and ApacheCon US 2009/Oakland are available. Please contact Delia Frees at
delia@... for further information.

ApacheCon US 2009 is co-produced by the Apache Software Foundation and Stone
Circle Productions. The ApacheCon Planning team comprises ASF Members from
all over the world working on a wholly-volunteer basis. For more
information, visit http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/

[Announce] Call For Papers opens for ApacheCon US 2009

2008-11-07T13:51:49Z

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@...>

If you have only 30 seconds to read this;

Join us in celebrating the ASF's 10th Anniversary at ApacheCon!

The Call for Papers is now open for ApacheCon US 2009, taking place 2-6
November in Oakland, California. Proposals are being accepted at
http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/cfp/ and can be revised at anytime until
the submissions closing deadline of 28 February 2009.

In addition, sponsorship opportunities for both ApacheCon EU 2009/Amsterdam
and ApacheCon US 2009/Oakland are available. Please contact Delia Frees at
delia@... for further information.

Please, read on...

*******

ApacheCon Celebrates the ASF's 10th Anniversary in Oakland, California,
2-6 November 2009

Call for Papers Opens for ApacheCon US 2009

The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) invites submissions to its official
user and developer conference, taking place 2-6 November 2009 at the Oakland
Convention Center and Marriott Hotel. ApacheCon serves as a forum for
showcasing the ASF's latest projects, members, and community initiatives.
Offering unparalleled educational opportunities, ApacheCon's presentations,
hands-on trainings, and sessions address key technology, development,
business/community, and licensing issues in Open Source.

The wide range of activities offered at ApacheCon promotes the exchange of
ideas amongst ASF Members, committers, innovators, developers, vendors, and
users interested in the future of Open Source technology. The conference
program includes peer-reviewed sessions, trainings/workshops, and select
invited keynote presentations and speakers.

Conference Themes and Topics

Building on ten years of success, ApacheCon returns to the Bay Area for the
10th anniversary of the Apache Software Foundation. Comprising some of the
most active and recognized developers in the Open Source community,
ApacheCon provides an influential platform for dialogue between Open Source
developers and users, traversing a wide range of ideas, expertise, and
personalities.

ApacheCon welcomes submissions across many fields, geographic locations, and
areas of development. The breadth of the Apache community lends itself to
conference content that is somewhat loosely-structured, with common themes
of interest addressing groundbreaking technologies and emerging trends, best
practices (from development to deployment), case studies and lessons learned
(tips, tools, and tricks). In addition, ApacheCon will continue to offer its
highly popular, two-day intensive trainings; certifications of completion
will be distributed to those who fulfill all the training requirements.

Topics appropriate for submission are manifold, and may include but are not
restricted to: Apache HTTP server (installation, configuration, migration,
and more); ASF-wide projects (including Lucene, Hadoop, Jackrabbit, and
Maven); Scripting languages and dynamic content (such as Java, Perl, Python,
Ruby, XSL, and PHP); Security and e-commerce (performance tuning, load
balancing and high availability); New technologies (including broader
initiatives such as Web Services and Web 2.0); ASF-Incubated projects (such
as Sling, UIMA, and Shindig); and Business/Community issues (Open Source
driven business models, open development, enterprise adoption, and more).

Submission Guidelines

Submissions must include; – Session title - Speaker name - Speaker biography
- Session description - Format and duration - Audience expertise level

Full details are available online on the CFP page at [WWW]
http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/cfp/

Types of Presentations; - Trainings/Workshops - General Sessions - Case
Studies/Industry Profiles - Corporate Showcases & Demonstrations - Fast
Feather (short) sessions - Birds of a Feather discussions - Invited
Keynotes/Panels/Speakers

Pre-Conference Trainings/Workshops

Held on the first two days of the conference (2-3 November 2009), ApacheCon
trainings are available at a registration fee beyond the regular conference
fee. Proposals may be submitted for half-day (3 hours), full-day (6 hours),
or two-day (12 hours) training sessions. These proposed tutorials should be
aimed at providing in-depth, hands-on development experience or related
continuing education. Training submissions are welcome at beginner,
intermediate, and expert levels.

General Sessions include presentations on practical development
applications, insight into high-interest projects, best practices and key
advances, overcoming implementation challenges, and industry innovations.
Especially welcome are submissions that extend participants' understanding
the role of ASF projects and their influence on the Open Source community at
large. General Sessions are scheduled for 50 minutes and are accessible to
all conference delegates.

Case Study/Industry Profile

Practitioners are invited to submit presentations that focus on how
implementing particular ASF technologies led to improved products/solutions,
service offerings, changes in work practices, among other successes.
Proposals that highlight overcoming interesting challenges in application
design and developing innovative frameworks using multiple ASF projects are
particularly encouraged. NOTE: Marketing-oriented submissions aimed at
promoting specific organizations or products will not be accepted.

Invited Keynotes/Panels/Speakers

Each conference the ApacheCon Planning team invites select presenters
dealing with engaging, dialectical, and challenging subjects to present in
keynote and/or panel formats. Topics include cutting-edge technology
development, industry leadership, hot or emerging trends, opinions on
controversial issues, insight on technology paradigms, and contrasting
viewpoints in complementary professional areas. Those interested in
suggesting a candidate for an invited speaker opportunity should submit a
brief proposal with the speaker's name, affiliation, background/bio,
overview of topics of interest, and contact information.

Birds of a Feather (BoF) sessions and Fast Feather Track talks are selected
by separate processes, nearer to the beginning of the conference.

Proposals are now being accepted at http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/cfp/
and can be revised at anytime until the submissions closing deadline of 28
February 2009.

In addition, sponsorship opportunities for both ApacheCon EU 2009/Amsterdam
and ApacheCon US 2009/Oakland are available. Please contact Delia Frees at
delia@... for further information.

ApacheCon US 2009 is co-produced by the Apache Software Foundation and Stone
Circle Productions. The ApacheCon Planning team comprises ASF Members from
all over the world working on a wholly-volunteer basis. For more
information, visit http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/

Re: [Test] outstanding patches ?

2008-10-31T06:32:19Z

since there was no response,
I haven't applied a patch yet...

looks like all is fine.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Paul Spencer <paulsp@...> wrote:

> Matthias,
> Where are you in the process?
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> are there outstanding patches ?
>> If so, please reply to this mail with the according jira #.
>>
>> I will find some time for
>> a) review
>> b) applying them to Shale test.
>>
>> After that, I will find some more time to finally do a release (more
>> on that later),
>> first, let's get the patches in ;-)
>>
>> -M
>>
>
>

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: [Test] outstanding patches ?

2008-10-30T10:07:07Z

Matthias,
Where are you in the process?

Paul Spencer

Matthias Wessendorf wrote:

> Hi,
>
> are there outstanding patches ?
> If so, please reply to this mail with the according jira #.
>
> I will find some time for
> a) review
> b) applying them to Shale test.
>
> After that, I will find some more time to finally do a release (more
> on that later),
> first, let's get the patches in ;-)
>
> -M
>

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-22T09:41:06Z

Hi Greg,

See inline.

~ Simon

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Greg Reddin <gredbug@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Simon Lessard
> <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
> >
> > If the base
> > test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less
> condemning
> > MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend
> on
> > it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to redevelop the base
> > test classes, or release versions without running unit tests on the API.
>
> I'm trying to make sure I understand the issue so please bear with me.
> If shale-test depends on 2.0 RI and 2.0 RI is not yet released, then
> shale-test cannot be upgraded, no matter where it lives, correct?

Correct.

> If so, then a JSF 2.0 development branch could be created (either in
> Shale or MyFaces) so work can be done on a 2.0 version of shale-test.
> That development branch could depend on a snapshot of JSF 2.0 (whether
> the snapshot is MyFaces or something else) while it is in development.

Yes, but you're assuming that there is a -SNAPHOT version and that's the
root of the problem.

We cannot even create snapshot version as Continuum is going to whine about
test not passing since we depend on shale-test which itself isn't ready for
2.0 since it is waiting for API 2.0 to exist. So, to get a -SNAPSHOT
somewhere in the Maven repository we have to either do an alpha release of
the API disabling unit tests, or create our own base test classes and no
longer depend on Shale-Test (we would more or less recreate Shale-test in a
way).

If we cannot do either of those options, then we can't release or even JUnit
test the new code until JSF RI is released so that Shale-test depends on it,
so that in turn MyFaces API can build have an official release and finally
so that Shale-Test 2.0 can use MyFaces API 2.0 as a dependency rather than
RI.

>
> Once there is a release of the 2.0 API anywhere, then shale-test can
> be released, then MyFaces, once passing all tests, can be released.
> Have I identified the situation correctly?

Yup, exactly, but the anywhere here means RI since MyFaces depends on
Shale-test.

>
> If so, then I can see how it would be more convenient for the MyFaces
> community for shale-test to live there. But it could further isolate
> the Shale community by moving a vibrant part of Shale out. I would
> rather see more cooperation occur. If we get enough folks to commit to
> Shale (even just test) then Shale releases don't have to be such a
> backlog.

I don't know the whole Shale test framework, however would it be possible or
conceivable to not move it completely, simply moving the core classes that
are inherently linked to the API (FacesContext, Application and such) and
keep everything else under shale test umbrella? Or is the whole framework
composed of such core classes?

> I don't think MyFaces are the only people relying on or
> benefitting from shale-test so it might not be a good idea to tie
> shale-test releases into MyFaces.

Of course not, we would have to work out something on that matter so that
everyones using shale-test keep fully compatibility without even changing
their pom, this could be achieved (in case it was moved completely or in
part to MyFaces) by having shale-test depend on myfaces-api's test-jar for
example.

>
>
> Greg
>

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-22T09:19:29Z

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Simon Lessard
<simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>
> If the base
> test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less condemning
> MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend on
> it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to redevelop the base
> test classes, or release versions without running unit tests on the API.

I'm trying to make sure I understand the issue so please bear with me.
If shale-test depends on 2.0 RI and 2.0 RI is not yet released, then
shale-test cannot be upgraded, no matter where it lives, correct? If
so, then a JSF 2.0 development branch could be created (either in
Shale or MyFaces) so work can be done on a 2.0 version of shale-test.
That development branch could depend on a snapshot of JSF 2.0 (whether
the snapshot is MyFaces or something else) while it is in development.
Once there is a release of the 2.0 API anywhere, then shale-test can
be released, then MyFaces, once passing all tests, can be released.
Have I identified the situation correctly?

If so, then I can see how it would be more convenient for the MyFaces
community for shale-test to live there. But it could further isolate
the Shale community by moving a vibrant part of Shale out. I would
rather see more cooperation occur. If we get enough folks to commit to
Shale (even just test) then Shale releases don't have to be such a
backlog. I don't think MyFaces are the only people relying on or
benefitting from shale-test so it might not be a good idea to tie
shale-test releases into MyFaces.

Greg

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-22T08:45:07Z

Hi Greb,

My problem isn't that Shale Test is linked to JSF, it's that MyFaces API is
linked to Shale-Test (while not to any other module). The part of Shale-test
we're using to test MyFaces isn't even linked to Shale other than for
historical reason (no harm intended here, it's merely factual). If the base
test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less condemning
MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend on
it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to redevelop the base
test classes, or release versions without running unit tests on the API. If
you see any other way, please share it, because that would fix the issue
here.

Regards,

~ Simon

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Greg Reddin <gredbug@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Gary VanMatre <gvanmatre@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
> project. However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find
> volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to
> move to MyFaces, then so be it.
>
> +1. I'm not saying I'm dead set against a MyFaces merger. If that's
> the best thing for the Shale project, then let's go do it. But I would
> much rather see efforts to grow the Shale community, rather than take
> one node that has a lot of interest and move it somewhere else. I
> don't think we've really explored the options that involve keeping all
> of Shale here.
>
> As to Simon's argument that Shale Test is linked exclusively to JSF, I
> think that applies to the whole framework. We can't work towards a JSF
> 2 version of the other components without having a JSF 2 codebase to
> link to. So if Test is being held back by that dependency then so is
> the rest of the project.
>
> Greg
>

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-22T07:48:49Z

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Gary VanMatre <gvanmatre@...> wrote:
>
> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project. However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to move to MyFaces, then so be it.

+1. I'm not saying I'm dead set against a MyFaces merger. If that's
the best thing for the Shale project, then let's go do it. But I would
much rather see efforts to grow the Shale community, rather than take
one node that has a lot of interest and move it somewhere else. I
don't think we've really explored the options that involve keeping all
of Shale here.

As to Simon's argument that Shale Test is linked exclusively to JSF, I
think that applies to the whole framework. We can't work towards a JSF
2 version of the other components without having a JSF 2 codebase to
link to. So if Test is being held back by that dependency then so is
the rest of the project.

Greg

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-20T09:17:51Z

Oups, I meant Gary sorry... Dunno why I confused you with Craig...

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Simon Lessard
<simon.lessard.3@...>wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> The difference is the test framework, or at least a part of it, is linked
> exclusively to JSF. More practically, what this mean is that we have a
> cyclic reference between the API and the test. For example, the test
> framework depends on FacesContext. However, since we like Shale test
> framework, we also test the API with the framework, now this is a chicken or
> egg issue.
>
> This is even more problematic in case of JSF 2.0 since there's no released
> API to depend on, so I cannot modify the framework even by depending on
> SNAPSHOT pseudo release since I cannot build those with unit test sicne
> those unit tests aren't 2.0 compliant. I guess it would be possible to
> create a pseudo release skipping unit tests, but it seems against the
> standard quality reputation of Apache to do so.
>
> So, personally, I would have liked to put the JSF part of the framework in
> MyFaces test project and release the test jar at the same time as the core
> so that people can still use it as a dependency.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Gary VanMatre <gvanmatre@...>wrote:
>
>>
>> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
>> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...>
>> wrote:
>> > > Hey Simon,
>> > >
>> > > I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
>> > > thread on this topic.
>> > >
>> > > However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
>> > > a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
>> > > though :-).
>> >
>> > I am also +1 on the move ;-)
>> >
>>
>> Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the normal
>> community protocol. For goodness sakes, what if every project felt it
>> necessary to pull commons digester into their own just because they use it.
>>
>> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
>> project. However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find
>> volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to
>> move to MyFaces, then so be it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
>> > > <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know,
>> MyFaces
>> > >> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and
>> contracts
>> > >> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
>> > >> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't
>> override
>> > >> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code
>> compatibility.
>> > >>
>> > >> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
>> shale-test
>> > >> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be
>> integrated
>> > >> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >>
>> > >> ~ Simon
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
>> > > http://twitter.com/kito99
>> > > http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
>> mentoring
>> > > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>> > > +1 203-404-4848 x3
>> > >
>> > > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
>> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
>> > *
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Matthias Wessendorf
>> >
>> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>>
>

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-20T09:17:15Z

Hi Craig,

The difference is the test framework, or at least a part of it, is linked
exclusively to JSF. More practically, what this mean is that we have a
cyclic reference between the API and the test. For example, the test
framework depends on FacesContext. However, since we like Shale test
framework, we also test the API with the framework, now this is a chicken or
egg issue.

This is even more problematic in case of JSF 2.0 since there's no released
API to depend on, so I cannot modify the framework even by depending on
SNAPSHOT pseudo release since I cannot build those with unit test sicne
those unit tests aren't 2.0 compliant. I guess it would be possible to
create a pseudo release skipping unit tests, but it seems against the
standard quality reputation of Apache to do so.

So, personally, I would have liked to put the JSF part of the framework in
MyFaces test project and release the test jar at the same time as the core
so that people can still use it as a dependency.

Regards,

~ Simon

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Gary VanMatre <gvanmatre@...>wrote:

>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...>
> wrote:
> > > Hey Simon,
> > >
> > > I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
> > > thread on this topic.
> > >
> > > However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
> > > a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
> > > though :-).
> >
> > I am also +1 on the move ;-)
> >
>
> Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the normal
> community protocol. For goodness sakes, what if every project felt it
> necessary to pull commons digester into their own just because they use it.
>
> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project.
> However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers
> to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to move to
> MyFaces, then so be it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
> > > <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know,
> MyFaces
> > >> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and
> contracts
> > >> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
> > >> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't
> override
> > >> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code
> compatibility.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
> shale-test
> > >> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be
> integrated
> > >> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> ~ Simon
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > > http://twitter.com/kito99
> > > http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
> mentoring
> > > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> > > +1 203-404-4848 x3
> > >
> > > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
> > *
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-20T09:09:09Z

I tend to agree with Gary on this one. We need to grow the community.

My other objection to moving Shale is based around it's implementation
independents. By maintaining Shale's independence, we minimize the risk
of including a MyFaces implementation dependency, like myfaces-common,
into Shale-test. Yes, I know may of Shale's committers are MyFaces
committers.

Going forward, I would like to see Shale's sub-projects have their own
release cycle, but this discussion should be held in a different thread.

Paul Spencer

Gary VanMatre wrote:

> -------------- Original message ---------------------- From:
> "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...>
>> wrote:
>>> Hey Simon,
>>>
>>> I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the
>>> recent thread on this topic.
>>>
>>> However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this
>>> might be a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think
>>> Gary agrees, though :-).
>> I am also +1 on the move ;-)
>>
>
> Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the
> normal community protocol. For goodness sakes, what if every project
> felt it necessary to pull commons digester into their own just
> because they use it.
>
> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
> project. However, if the communities feel that the only way we can
> find volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit
> snobbish) is to move to MyFaces, then so be it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
>>> <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may
>>>> know, MyFaces uses Shale test for its unit testing. However,
>>>> the new API and contracts involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that
>>>> current test fails with an UnsupportedOperationException since
>>>> some test implementations don't override the new method that
>>>> weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
>>>> shale-test framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it
>>>> or will it be integrated in in part or completely in MyFaces
>>>> with time?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> ~ Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
>>> http://twitter.com/kito99 http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE
>>> consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com -
>>> JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info +1 203-404-4848 x3
>>>
>>> * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
>>> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
>> *
>>
>>
>> -- Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions:
>> http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter:
>> http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-20T08:49:10Z

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>

> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...> wrote:
> > Hey Simon,
> >
> > I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
> > thread on this topic.
> >
> > However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
> > a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
> > though :-).
>
> I am also +1 on the move ;-)
>

Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the normal community protocol. For goodness sakes, what if every project felt it necessary to pull commons digester into their own just because they use it.

I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project. However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to move to MyFaces, then so be it.

> >
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
> > <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know, MyFaces
> >> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and contracts
> >> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
> >> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't override
> >> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
> >>
> >> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for shale-test
> >> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be integrated
> >> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> ~ Simon
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > http://twitter.com/kito99
> > http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> > +1 203-404-4848 x3
> >
> > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
> *
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-20T00:09:32Z

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...> wrote:
> Hey Simon,
>
> I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
> thread on this topic.
>
> However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
> a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
> though :-).

I am also +1 on the move ;-)

>
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
> <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know, MyFaces
>> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and contracts
>> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
>> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't override
>> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
>>
>> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for shale-test
>> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be integrated
>> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ~ Simon
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://twitter.com/kito99
> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> +1 203-404-4848 x3
>
> * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
>

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: Shale test status

2008-10-19T14:34:40Z

Hey Simon,

I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
thread on this topic.

However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
though :-).

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
<simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know, MyFaces
> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and contracts
> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't override
> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
>
> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for shale-test
> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be integrated
> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> ~ Simon
>

--
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *