> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:07 PM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set > > That is a good point and this is even worse. Shale not only has an > existing code base, but also an existing community.
True. > I wouldn't argue if you guys wanted to move shale-test over though. :) > The Bridge needs something similar to support testing of portlet JSF > functionality. But that is a different story. Well, I made the mistake of talking about working on Shale Test @ JSFDays a few weeks ago, so I think you'll see more progress in that area... > Scott > > Kito D. Mann wrote: > > 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 > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
