On 12/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is an area that, IMHO, needs some serious thought from the MyFaces team. My expectation is that the Oracle donation will include a comprehensive framework around the specific library of widgets, and not just a repository of independent widgets. My fervent hope is that the MyFaces team will choose to integrate the existing MyFaces widgets with that framework, instead of having multiple disjoint code bases.
This is especially important in the _javascript_ arena. The last thing you want is for MyFaces users to have to download duplicate functionality into the browser because they happened to use widgets that required different frameworks to support them. It's even worse when those widgets all came from MyFaces.
Also, several of the existing MyFaces widgets are based on Prototype. This *will* cause users problems when they deploy to a portal environment, or when they try to use other libraries, or just other _javascript_ code in their pages. I've mentioned this before, but people don't seem to have taken this seriously (or they just don't care, which I hope isn't the case!). Migrating those widgets to use the Oracle framework, once it arrives, will almost certainly resolve these issues.
--
Martin Cooper
I'll pipe up from the peanut gallery here:
One thing to consider is whether a distinction will be meaningful going forward. So, if someone comes along with a new component they want to contribute, will it make sense for them to ask "should I put this in Tomahawk or X"?
This is an area that, IMHO, needs some serious thought from the MyFaces team. My expectation is that the Oracle donation will include a comprehensive framework around the specific library of widgets, and not just a repository of independent widgets. My fervent hope is that the MyFaces team will choose to integrate the existing MyFaces widgets with that framework, instead of having multiple disjoint code bases.
This is especially important in the _javascript_ arena. The last thing you want is for MyFaces users to have to download duplicate functionality into the browser because they happened to use widgets that required different frameworks to support them. It's even worse when those widgets all came from MyFaces.
Also, several of the existing MyFaces widgets are based on Prototype. This *will* cause users problems when they deploy to a portal environment, or when they try to use other libraries, or just other _javascript_ code in their pages. I've mentioned this before, but people don't seem to have taken this seriously (or they just don't care, which I hope isn't the case!). Migrating those widgets to use the Oracle framework, once it arrives, will almost certainly resolve these issues.
--
Martin Cooper
Also -- will combining them cause confusion in people's minds? My feeling is that few people know what Tomahawk means, so you can combine them without battling some preconcieved notion.
SteveOn 12/28/05, Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Martin Marinschek wrote:
>So what other suggestions are there for the naming of ADF-Faces?
>
>
>
I may be missing something here, but according to Ted the intention is
to incorporate Oracle's contribution into MyFaces, so any new name for
ADF is likely to be temporary only and not that important an issue.
Also, it doesn't appear Oracle's donation will ever move past incubation
status into its own project, because again it will be absorbed by
MyFaces, correct?
Glen
