Bruno, I totally agree, but we don't want a lot of dead projects out
there either. My point, and I think Simon's as well, is that much of
the contributions to the MyFaces Projects and renderkits comes from
companies and individuals who have a vested interest in supporting the
existing renderkits going forward. Getting MyFaces core up to 2.0 is
going to take away interest from the new project as is getting
renderkits like Trinidad to be JSF 2.0 compatible. This is not to say
that there isn't an interest in this, but one could spend hundreds of
developer hours getting their head around Trinidad alone, and without
the support of the majority of those currently active in the community,
this project may be doomed from the start. You may be able to leverage
some resources from other projects by moving as much stuff as possible
into the commons, but projects of this scope take a lot of time and my
guess is that you're basically looking at growing a new community.
I would seriously look at bringing a project of this scope into
incubator first. It'll hopefully help you to build the community you need.
Scott
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]
<mailto:[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
> >
>
