2005/11/30, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I wanted to resurrect one of our favorite threads ... Should the
shared code be in its own jar?
The reason why I bring this up now is that I'm starting to experiment
with an M2 build for MyFaces. In addition to some of the arguments
made earlier
I'm ok with commons (myfaces-commons.jar).
-1 for moving it to jakarta commons (at least for now.)
sean
On 11/30/05, Bill Dudney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 on the structural change
+0 on name change either way - An argument can be made for any of
the 3 proposed names (share, core or
Hi,
in my oppinion a jar for the shared files is the best way, but before
fixing a name: I think there could be a need for another jar.
There are some components in towmahawk.jar which also could be usefull
in combination with tobago. E.g. i don't like depend on towmahawk.jar
just to use
First:
my +1 for a separate jar, and myfaces-share or myfaces-commons.jar as
name - I don't mind either, I don't like core, though.
@Volker:
That's an interesting question.
We might need to split up the components into two groups, and create a
new component pack name for render independent
+1 for a separate jar.
It's a good point that tomahawk should be split, just like jsf/core
and jsf/html are split out. All of the validators, converters, and
non-rendering components probably should go into tomahawk-core :)
[Guess we probably better not use myfaces-core, but like Bill said, I
If we split the components, we will need another prefix for
myfaces-core ('ft', 'f' from the standard core and 't' from tomahawk)?
I see many decisions in this thread now :-) So I also think that we
should avoid the name myfaces-core.
Regards,
Bruno
2005/11/30, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL
On 11/30/05, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we split the components, we will need another prefix for
myfaces-core ('ft', 'f' from the standard core and 't' from tomahawk)?
I see many decisions in this thread now :-) So I also think that we
should avoid the name myfaces-core.
I'd
OK lets agree to drop core then since most don't like it ;-)
I think we have enough +1's for myfaces-commons.jar. If anyone wants
to express a -1 for this please do so in the next few days. For now
we'll assume this new jar in the maven builds.
I have some preliminary work done on the m2
Sean Schofield wrote:
I wanted to resurrect one of our favorite threads ... Should the
shared code be in its own jar?
The reason why I bring this up now is that I'm starting to experiment
with an M2 build for MyFaces. In addition to some of the arguments
made earlier we can now add Maven to
I wanted to resurrect one of our favorite threads ... Should the
shared code be in its own jar?
The reason why I bring this up now is that I'm starting to experiment
with an M2 build for MyFaces. In addition to some of the arguments
made earlier we can now add Maven to the list of reasons why we
I think that's an excellent idea, since drawing those lines in the
codebase would hopefully encourage levels of separation and increase
compatability of your JSF implementation with other frameworks and
components.
Sean Schofield wrote:
I wanted to resurrect one of our favorite threads ...
I also wasn't fond of yet another myfaces.jar, but I think the
advantages of releasing different versions of Tomahawk and Impl make
up for it. At some point, Impl should become stable and mature, but
hopefully tomahawk is going to constantly change and grow. I don't
think Impl and Tomahawk
12 matches
Mail list logo
