A couple of notes embedded below.
On 10/21/07, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > I sent out an e-mail to the Shale mailing list a week or so ago about > > the > > > possibility of merging Shale with MyFaces. Development of Shale has > > become > > > somewhat stale, and I'd rather see MyFaces pickup the pieces than > > have the > > > code base atrophy The overwhelming consensus for the Shale list is > > "yes" > > > (and Craig is no exception). What does the MyFaces PMC think? > > > > > I am +1. > > I'm not on the PMC, but I wanted to state +1 for the record. From dealing > with students and clients, I think this would be a good thing for JSF. > > > I think we just have to define which modules we would like to take > > over: > > (BTW, this list is not to offend anyone, if this might happen, then > > sorry in advance - it might be just due to not sensitively enough > > choosen english wording.) > > > > > > * Application Controller > > Don't know. I thought action oriented frameworks are outdated, though, > > Seam seems to introduce this paradigm again too. A lot of the reason you need an API for this is the original target platform pre servlet Filters, although filters tend to be a pretty clumsy way to assemble chain of responsibility workflows. I like the way Struts2/WW do this a lot better, but even that would be more elegant if you could use managed beans to load the executing logic, and bind it together with EL expressions. > > -1. It's probably better to integrate any sort of direct request processing > into the Remoting support (I know it's currently implemented using the > Application Controller, but that's an implementation detail). Also, I don't > know if anyone actually uses this. > > > > > * Clay > > Don't know. I am happy that we (I) moved away from html to components. > > -1. Although I know Clay has some supporters, Facelets and JSFTemplating are > going to affect JSF 2.0 the most. I'd love to see some of the Clay people > help out with Facelets, actually. > That's the same conclusion about the future that I've been coming to. > > * Core Library > > Might be a must have > > +1 Its a pretty small set of utility classes, but the important point is it is *independent* of component libraries. Maybe it could be a jumpstart for the long-rumored Myfaces shared library that could be used by all the component libraries for the boring utility stuff? > > > * Dialog Manager > > * Dialog Manager (Basic Implementation) > > * Dialog Manager (SCXML Implementation) > > The Dialog Manager might be a next step for MyFaces Orchestra. Anyway, > > I > > hope that one of the original developers is still there to help out > > with > > things. > > +0 I like the idea of integrating this with Orchestra, although I'm not > convinced that Spring should be a requirement to use this feature. If that's > the case, you might as well use Spring Web Flow. The thing I like most about Shale Dialogs is that you really can abstract a significant amount of detail behind a common dialog interface, and then pick a back end implementation with varying sets of capabilities (and dependencies). Early on in Orchestra's life, I had suggested to Mario that it would be cool to have an adapter so you could Orchestra as your dialog implementation :-). Longer term, this territory is going to get addressed by Web Beans (JSR-299), which is likely to include all the scope stuff (and more than Dialog has), coupled with annotation based dependency injection. But I've always felt that support for scopes other than request/session/application *really* belongs in the servlet spec so all Java web technologies can use it ... > > > * Remoting > > Unsure, as most of this can be done with PPR too. > > +1 This is pretty useful and easy to use, and will affect JSF 2.0. The original sweet spot for Shale Remoting was where you do *not* want to worry about the performance overhead of recreating and updating the JSF component tree on every Ajax request. Examples would be an autocomplete component itself, doing async callbacks simply to get the data it needs to offer as suggestions, with no impact on the component tree. If you do need to manipulate the component tree, do what Trinidad or Tobago do with their own components, or use something like Ajax4JSF or Dynamic Faces instead. A secondary benefit is near-zero config for resource access, particularly for resources provided in a jar file instead of as exploded files in a WAR. Until JSF 2 comes along, that's pretty useful all by itself. > > > * Spring Integration > > Unsure, I didn't get whats the advantage to the intregration with > > Spring If you had all your business logic beans configured via Spring, it was easier on the developer to configure their managed beans there as well, and this module let you do that with Spring 1. For Spring 2 it is not relevant, because Spring did it's own integration to let you create JSF managed beans in whatever scope you want. > > -1 This is pretty useless now as far as I can tell. > > > * Test Framework > > Must have I think > > +1 IIRC, this is already being used in various parts of the MyFaces source tree. > > > * Tiger Extensions > > Interesting, however, I'd like to tell everyone to use Spring as MB > > facility. And then Spring needs to provide such annotations (which are > > already existent I think) > > +1 This will serve as a blueprint for JSF 2.0, and it's quite useful. > Although it's nice to use Spring, not everybody does, and we shouldn't force > people to do so. Not having to put *anything* in a faces-config.xml file is pretty nice :-). > > > * Tiles Integration > > See Clay. > > +0 I'll abstain here and since I don't know much about the Tiles side of > things. Let's just say that I think Tiles integration should "just work" in > MyFaces and Shale. Likely relevant for historical Struts1 users who want to stick with JSP as their view technology. Not relevant at all for Facelets or Clay based views. > > > * Validator Support > > A generic client/server validation library for JSF would be REALLY > > nice. > > Just, I don't like the idea just having a single component for this > > (val:commonsValidator), at least, this one needs to be extended. > > -1 I haven't heard of too many people using this these days, since Ajax is > usually easier to do these days. If this is a big desire by the community, > it'd make more sense to integrate it as a proper set of validators or > components. > The current code primarily adapts Commons Validator to JSF components for server side validation (with a little help for client side validation as well). The latter is a big missing link in standard JSF input components, and it would be nice to see a Commons Validator evolution to provide client side validators too, and some library like this to wrap them for the JSF use case. > > * View Controller > > This needs to be reviewed and merged with the Orchestra one if possible > > +1 This is a requirement, I think. Think ov View Controller as providing *four* possible callbacks per request, instead of the one you normally get in action frameworks (and even JSF out of the box). Without this, you're basically thrust into assembling workflows with filters or Struts2/WW handlers to deal with some very common use cases. Craig
