Re: Significant, not discussed changes on master (was: Re: MOJARRA_2_3X_ROLLING branch has been created)

From: Edward Burns <>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:15:36 -0800

>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:56:12 +0100, arjan tijms <> said:

AT> Sorry if the changes took anyone by surprise. The move to a Maven structure
AT> was already started a great while ago (originally started by Manfred then
AT> continued by me). I was told however to hold of with making a full switch
AT> over until the 2.3 branch was made and the trunk was re-opened again.

AT> So when the trunk did indeed opened I figured this was the right thing to
AT> do, and now was a specifically good time for it, since it's a bit of the
AT> calm period so to speak for the trunk.

Yes, no doubt it's a good time for it.

AT> In general, having a kind of mixup between various project types/build
AT> systems, such as Ant and Maven in this case, proved to be very confusing.
AT> We have all experienced this. It took me personally quit a bit of time to
AT> be able to build the Mojarra project and run the tests. Bauke experienced
AT> the same thing, and recently Thomas mentioned it too, again.

Yes, and I know Vernon and Neil have dealt with it as well. The
antiquated and crufty build system has long been a pain point.

AT> With OmniFaces we took the same step btw, moving from Ant to Maven, but
AT> this was of course much easier since the project was so much smaller.

AT> Next to the big change of moving over the files to the Maven default
AT> locations, I also started fixing some Sonar/PMD warnings, and on my TODO
AT> list I had put the task of migrating the Cactus tests to the current test
AT> harness as well.

AT> Fixing the Sonar/PMD warnings are small incremental changes, typically 1
AT> fix of a specific type per commit. Migrating all the Cactus tests is
AT> altogether a big change, but the commits itself would be small, likely one
AT> test at a time per commit.

Yes, that seems like a good approach.

AT> What would be the recommended way to continue now?

This work can certainly proceed, but I'd like to see notifications sent
to the dev list. Even better if the change can be proposed and
discussed before being enacted.

I do have some questions though.

What is the plan for the jsf-api and jsf-impl directories?

What is the plan for the api directory, since the classes formerly in
jsf-api/src/main/java are now in the impl directory?

How do you generate the jsf-api.jar?



| | office: +1 407 458 0017
| 12 business days until planned start of JSF 2.3 Final Approval Ballot
|  2 business days until DevNexus 2017
| 27 business days until JavaLand 2017