You're absolutely right that it can happen if enough people are interested in doing it. That's what OSS is all about. And if it happens, that would be great.
My comment is just about what is *likely* to happen without any sudden new inflow of volunteers. The original poster suggested it would be a good idea, but didn't volunteer to spend the next six months coding it :-). Just being realistic, I don't see existing committers with enough time or interest to do this in the near future, particularly as at least some of them will want to try to create a JSF core 2.0 when the spec is ready, rather than new component kits. Regards, Simon On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 21:15 +0100, Bruno Aranda wrote: > 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 > > > > > > >
