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
> >
>
