I don't see why not we could start a new component set for jsf 2.0 if there is enough interest within the developers and users. This is a community thing and if people worked heavily in such a project and the result was good, I don't see why it should not exist. If others want to maintain Trinidad and Tobago, any help is welcome too. At the end, it is up to each individual :)
Cheers, Bruno On 31/03/2008, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tomahawk certainly does need a radical refresh. It's got some useful > stuff, but is very ugly internally. > > There is slow work going on at the moment on something called the > myfaces "commons projects" (or some similar name). The idea is to split > up tomahawk into about 4 different pieces. At the same time it's > therefore possible to discard the bits that have too much overlap with > other projects (esp Trinidad). > > That doesn't mean that the current Tomahawk will be abandoned, but it is > an opportunity to scavenge the best bits for commons and discard the > rest. But I'd really like to see new stuff go into the "commons" > projects myself. Whether commons is JSF1.2 or JSF2.0 depends on the > relative progress of commons vs the JSF spec I suppose :-). > > I can't see Trinidad being rewritten anytime soon; that's a pretty big > job. Just getting a core JSF-2.0 implementation done is likely to suck > up all the spare time of the current myfaces contributors. And, like for > Tomahawk, there is a big pool of people who want to use Trinidad on > JSF1.2 (including the committers employed by Oracle) so the current form > of Trinidad will not be going away in the near future. > > I'm not aware of anything in JSF2.0 that is a radical improvement over > JSF1.2. Lots of nice bits, but does it really make components work > faster or vastly more efficient than can be done within JSF1.2? > > Regards, > > Simon > > > On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 13:50 -0600, Scott O'Bryan wrote: > > +0 > > > > While I see the merit of starting over (and certainly wouldn't argue > > against a new component set based off of 2.0), I don't think we should > > abadon/restrict renderkits from continuing to support emerging > > standards. I know that many of the folks on Trinidad are interested in > > supporting 2.0 going forward and I would suspect the other renderkits > > are as well. > > > > Scott > > > > Jesse Alexander (KSFH 323) wrote: > > > I am wondering whether the event of JSF 2.0 would not be a good > > > moment to create a new component set. > > > > > > Well... another component set? > > > > > > The main thoughts behind it are > > > - the 3 MyFaces component sets > > > - are somewhat incompatible > > > - have each their good points > > > - have some weak points > > > - are missing some "cool" components > > > - partially have duplicated components > > > - are partially missing important concepts > > > > > > JSF 2.0 brings a new concept to do components. > > > > > > Now it would be possible to update each component set to JSF 2.0... > > > but a Tomahawk/JSF2 is "expected" to be backward compatible. So it > > > would be difficult to radically change components or eliminate some > > > duplicates... > > > > > > Whereas a new component set that would > > > - take all good concepts from the existing 3 component sets > > > (and maybe some more from other comp-sets?) > > > - deliver a clean set of components > > > - just do it for JSF 2.0 > > > - not have to take backwards compatibility into consideration > > > > > > > > > I think if such a new component set would fit, then it would be now > the > > > right time to think about the requirements... and as soon as a > > > workable beta is around the first steps for the realization could be > > > made... > > > > > > regards > > > Alexander > > > > > > >
