On 4/11/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is
still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I think
it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and
MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now.
Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in
library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be
kept/improved by developers.
sounds like you also prefer the subproject.
It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP right
away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and
Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be TLP(s),
then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be
achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho.
MyFaces is the TLP currently for almost all JSF stuff. it has three subprojects:
-jsf impl
-tomahawk
-tobago
(I'd consider the impl as a subproject as well)
Shale (a jsf framework) is it's own TLP
I'd not say, that Shale is a loner! There is also JSF-stuff in portals
and even in cocoon.
Perhaps the best for now is, going as a subproject of Apache MyFaces
and start a discussion on the "future" of MyFaces. I can see the value
of a Apache MyFaces project, that cares about JSF IMPL only.
And a "jakarta-style" JSF components project.
Let's assume we start the "myfaces commons" stuff in the near future,
this "JSF components TLP" could have the following subprojects:
-Tomahawk
-Tobago
-Trinidad
-commons (non-renderkit-goodies)
Martin, you are the man that know best about Jakarta, what are your
thoughts on that?
For now, I think it's worth to graduate to be a Apache MyFaces subproject.
-Matthias
My 2ยข,
~ Simon
On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing.
> He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project.
>
> Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when
> RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set.
>
> Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV
> list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment.
>
> The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta.
>
> But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the
> best, for now.
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation
> > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then
> > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both
> > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets.
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sorry for the one in all reply..
> > >
> > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF
> implementation.
> > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the
> possible overlap of the
> > > component sets, I am focussing on the possible lack of overlap in
> community of the JSF
> > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different
> users and different developers
> > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone
> interested in components is not
> > > interested in coding on the JSF implementation).
> > >
> > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this situation
> (if you are aware of these
> > > signs you can watch out for it)
> > >
> > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces.
> > >
> > > Mvgr,
> > > Martin
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
