I just want to add that when we were talking about moving Shale over to MyFaces, people were worried about resources for maintaining it. And Shale is an *existing* code base :-). I think it'd make a lot more sense to migrate the existing suites to JSF 2 branches.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info phone: +1 203-653-2989 fax: +1 203-653-2988 > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:39 PM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >
