On 7/26/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
folks,
more
AdfFacesFilter => RequestFilter ?
-1; TrinidadFilter. All filters are per-request.
but what with:
ADFLogger
ADFLoggerRecord
TrinidadLogger. ("record" is a package-private class, so just
TrinidadLoggerRecord). if anyone has a better name for
this class (a thin wrapper of JDK 1.4 logging), happy to hear.
-- Adam
-Matthias
On 7/24/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 7/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What with
> >
> >
<faceletHandlerClass>org.apache.myfaces.adfinternal.facelets.AdfComponentHandler</faceletHandlerClass>
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> > I am fine with TrinidadComponentHandler, b/c this is *specific* to T.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > On 7/21/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 7/20/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > For class names, I'm thinking that:
> > > > AdfFacesContext -> RequestContext, or maybe LifecycleContext
> > > > AdfRenderingContext -> RenderingContext
> > > > (the latter is currently a private-ish internal class, but I think
> > > > we should make it public at some point.)
> > >
> > > I like that RequestContext and RenderingContext thing
> > >
> > > > I also wish we could keep the "internal" part of the package; I'd
> > > > rather have:
> > > >
> > > > org.apache.myfacesinternal.trinidad
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidadinternal
> > >
> > > ok.
> > >
> > > Any other opinion ?
> > >
> > > > ... than:
> > > >
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.internal
> > > >
> > > > Doing it "without the dot" forces all the internal code
> > > > into an entirely different directory structure, which is
> > > > handy for things like doc + inclusion rules - you don't
> > > > have to specify exclusion rules, just inclusion.
> > > >
> > > > -- Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/20/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > ADF-FACES-API
> > > > > > package
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.adf.**
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.**
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ADF-FACES-IMPL
> > > > > > package
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.adfinternal.**
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.internal.**
> > > > > > (note trinidad DOT internal)
> > > > >
> > > > > Since nobody seams to have a problem with the package suggestion, I
think we
> > > > > should move on on this task, ok ?
> > > > >
> > > > > o.a.m.trinidad is also fine. Tobago does the same.
> > > > > they use also the myfaces specific namespace.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only tomahawk doesn't :)
> > > > >
> > > > > org.apache.myfaces.custom
> > > > >
> > > > > but that is from ooooooooold days. Hard to change :)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > More interesting are class names like AdfFacesContext.
> > > > > > Naming them TrinidadContext might not a good solution.
> > > > > > Note: This class is *not* extending FacesContext.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ExternalContext might be a good name...
> > > > > > but... as we all know, this is already taken :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any ideas?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > >
> > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
