[17:39:46] <nbelaevski> hello all
[17:40:01] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: reviewing latest updates for tree
[17:40:07] <nbelaevski> yup http://community.jboss.org/wiki/TreemigrationtoRichFaces4
[17:40:20] <nbelaevski> added JIRA links & updated info
[17:41:42] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: for the JSF 2.0, or JSF 2.1 choice
[17:41:58] <@balunasj> The AS 6 team is going to be releasing with 2.0.X not 2.1X
[17:42:07] <nbelaevski> balunasj: just agreed on cancelable & non-cancelable events
[17:42:19] <nbelaevski> balunasj: so did minor update
[17:42:51] <nbelaevski> balunasj: that's a quirk because MyFaces 2.0.2 & Mojarra 2.0.2 use different schemes for iteration components client id
[17:43:39] <nbelaevski> balunasj: anyway targetting 2.0 
[17:43:47] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: yup
[17:44:14] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: what is the best way to go through this?
[17:44:43] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: want to go through each item again, or just where you have questions, concerns?
[17:44:55] <nbelaevski> balunasj: not sure... we have custom implementation of base iteration component class
[17:45:13] <nbelaevski> but that's the thing we were going to remove IIRC
[17:45:35] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: where are you in the doc - not following
[17:45:49] <nbelaevski> if you don't have questions about M5/LT features I suggest to look at LT-important
[17:46:13] <nbelaevski> ah, I thought you were asking about 2.0 vs 2.1
[17:46:29] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: nope - sorry
[17:46:51] <nbelaevski> so, I've put separately features that Ilya said are important
[17:47:09] <nbelaevski> currently they are not added to M5 scope, so we need to decide
[17:47:26] <nbelaevski> are we going to have them or no
[17:47:31] <@balunasj> ok so the section on "additional features for M5" you are all set on, and plan to complete?
[17:47:35] <nbelaevski> balunasj: yes
[17:47:44] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: ok good
[17:47:52] <nbelaevski> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/RF-9686
[17:47:53] <jbossbot> jira [RF-9686] Tree: additional features [Open, Major, Nick Belaevski] https://jira.jboss.org/browse/RF-9686
[17:48:21] <@balunasj> execute'/'render - for node selection?
[17:48:36] <nbelaevski> yes
[17:48:45] <nbelaevski> toggle execute node only
[17:48:59] <@balunasj> ok makes sense
[17:49:23] <@balunasj> what built in converters for row keys are you plannig?
[17:50:30] <nbelaevski> kind of converters that were available in 3.x - to escape i18n chars
[17:50:56] <@balunasj> ah ok, did not know if you meant something more..
[17:51:02] <nbelaevski> users want to use natural keys as row key segments - so we need to make them compliant ID char
[17:51:44] <@balunasj> for the adaptor's waiting to see what you can get in for M5?  Or just time to look at it?
[17:52:09] <nbelaevski> fulll port of 3.x features
[17:52:24] <nbelaevski> no specs. for now - because changes are slight - only tags renaming
[17:52:51] <nbelaevski> so waiting for some ideas/suggestions to appear
[17:53:21] <@balunasj> ok sure
[17:53:32] <nbelaevski> I'm going to freeze this down at some point - when I start development 
[17:53:40] <@balunasj> So then I'm good with moving on to the questions important items
[17:54:01] <@balunasj> just so I'm clear these are the issues that you and ishaikovsky think are important, but not sure will fit?
[17:54:07] <nbelaevski> one more point is about DnD - Ilya has concerns that it may fit into M5
[17:54:34] <nbelaevski> I'd say he has reason because DnD is still in discussion
[17:54:57] <nbelaevski> so the suggestion is to put smth. from LT important instead of DnD points
[17:55:21] <nbelaevski> another thing - integrated DnD vs external DnD - what profits do we have?
[17:55:42] <nbelaevski> ishaikovsky: ^
[17:56:21] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: my question would be will external dnd function with tree's as is, or is there some detail I missing?
[17:56:38] <nbelaevski> in 3.x we had built-in DnD
[17:57:06] <ishaikovsky> nbelaevski, convenient definitions
[17:57:11] <nbelaevski> external was possible IIRC
[17:58:47] <@balunasj> how about for 4.0?  still possible?  If the difference is convenience for 4.0 I'm ok with limiting to external dnd
[17:59:00] <@balunasj> we'll just need a blog about how to do it right with external
[17:59:39] <nbelaevski> speaking about external DnD, this point from LT is likely to be necessary then: External partial updates
[18:00:02] <@balunasj> LT = ?
[18:00:10] <nbelaevski> LT points on the wiki
[18:00:13] <nbelaevski> long term
[18:00:21] <@balunasj> ok
[18:00:38] <ishaikovsky> I'm not sure that it's stopper.. guys could always update tree itself
[18:00:39] lfryc [~lfryc@ip4-83-240-80-137.cust.nbox.cz] has quit IRC: Quit: Leaving
[18:00:42] <@balunasj> That is a good feature anyway
[18:00:48] <nbelaevski> imho, I'd rather spend some extra time on unit testing then on integrating DnD
[18:00:58] <ishaikovsky> (if them not using 142 900 nodes :) )
[18:01:09] <nbelaevski> ishaikovsky: they'll just have to wait :)
[18:01:16] <ishaikovsky> yup :)
[18:01:30] <@balunasj> as long as some external support is there, I'm fine with pushing integrated support
[18:03:19] <@balunasj> can loading facet be done now with status?
[18:04:07] <nbelaevski> balunasj: no
[18:05:44] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: ok, assuming has to do with how requests are sent?  Would it be easier to tie in the status, or have tree have its own?
[18:07:20] <nbelaevski> balunasj: it's just more beatiful
[18:07:29] <nbelaevski> having status instead of handle icon
[18:07:43] <nbelaevski> embedded into tree
[18:08:20] <@balunasj> ok
[18:08:59] <@balunasj> ishaikovsky: kepboard navigation would be nice, but how critical do you think it is for 4.0.0
[18:11:19] <@balunasj> ?
[18:11:28] <ishaikovsky> balunasj, I agree that it's really nice :) but we discussed with Nick and seems have couple of questions to it
[18:11:34] <ishaikovsky> so probably need to move out
[18:13:13] <@balunasj> ishaikovsky: ok I'm ok with that
[18:13:55] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: If we drop integrated dnd - how much of the important items can you get in you think?
[18:14:07] <@balunasj> loading facet, client/server side api
[18:14:24] <@balunasj> perhaps partial updates?
[18:14:51] <nbelaevski> I think yes
[18:15:43] <@balunasj> then I think that is a fair trade
[18:16:04] <@balunasj> The other lower pirority items are just that I think lower priority
[18:16:05] <nbelaevski> ok, good
[18:17:41] <@balunasj> Unless there is something else - want to move on to issues?
[18:17:52] <nbelaevski> no issues for now
[18:18:05] <nbelaevski> ah, sorry
[18:18:07] <nbelaevski> these issues
[18:18:22] <nbelaevski> all future I think except the last
[18:18:24] <@balunasj> yup - at bottom of page
[18:18:40] <@balunasj> did we have any ## from 3.3?
[18:18:43] <nbelaevski> I can explain why
[18:18:52] alexsmirnov [~alexsmirn@206-169-37-210.static.twtelecom.net] has joined #richfaces
[18:19:20] <nbelaevski> balunasj: with numbers from 3.x there will be questions - there is no Tidy filter now
[18:19:49] <nbelaevski> balunasj: client speed of ajax updates should be better
[18:20:37] <nbelaevski> balunasj: what I want is to be sure we have satisfiable performance in the current impl. to plan optimization tasks for post-M5 if necessary
[18:22:11] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: So you want to have QE run some benchmarking ?
[18:23:11] <nbelaevski> balunasj: yes
[18:24:20] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: ok, I think it would be best to have you send an email explaining what you would like - but I agree it would be good to get the ##s and then see how things change
[18:26:25] <nbelaevski> balunasj: ok
[18:26:43] <@balunasj> nbelaevski: Then I'm happy with the updates discussed
[18:26:53] <nbelaevski> balunasj: good :)
[18:27:13] <nbelaevski> some more words about issues?
[18:27:14] <@balunasj> excellent!  anything else for now ( assuming you'll update the plans as discussed ) ;-)
[18:27:29] <@balunasj> what is the concern with scrollable containers?
[18:28:00] <nbelaevski> not a concern but complementary feature to keyboard navigation
[18:28:22] <nbelaevski> i.e. tree should be scrolling together with keyboard navigation
[18:29:15] <@balunasj> ok ic
[18:30:15] <@balunasj> Then that is it for now - other items I see as futures
[18:30:31] <nbelaevski> great thanks
[18:32:22] <@balunasj> thank you
[18:32:25] <@balunasj> talk to you later
[18:37:34] <nbelaevski> balunasj: sure