No, I am talking about the way the apache project is structured and releases scheduled:
I think it makes sense for the development goals of the components to be separate from the development goals of the implementation. After all, the components are useful without the MyFaces implementation, and the implementation is useful without the components. I would expect that once the implementation passes the TCK, there will be only the occasional bug fix until work on JSF 1.2 starts. In contrast, I would expect that there will be many updates of the components between the TCK and JSF 1.2. And once work on JSF 1.2 is in progress, I would expect that it will need to release more often than the components until it passes the TCK. If the component and implementation will have such different schedules and goals, why tie their releases together? What I am proposing is that we split the MyFaces apache project into an implementation subproject and a components subproject; each would have their own deliverables. For convenience, when we release the components we could also create a distribution that packaged the latest implementation along with the latest components, and vice-versa. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:54 AM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: Components subproject (was RE: [VOTE] Two tree controls) > > Howard, > > There is already an ant build script that can build and release the > JSF implementation separate from the custom components. So it is > already possible to use the JSF Implementation without the components. > Is this what you are after or are you looking for something more? > > sean > > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:50:16 -0500, Abrams, Howard A > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not so worried about 1.0.9, my comment was directed more towards the > > release after this one. Since there are many people that will want to > > use an Apache licensed certified JSF Implementation, but may not have > > the need for the MyFaces components, I thought I'd bring up the idea of > > making the components a subproject. > > > > Anyone have any thoughts? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:45 AM > > > To: MyFaces Development > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Two tree controls > > > > > > Howard, > > > > > > I think we have resolved this issue for now. I agree with you that > > > this type of disagreement should not impact the next release. Since > > > we can't seem to find a way out of the tree vs tree2 discussion both > > > will be included in the next release (and all forseeable future > > > releases.) So there will be no scheduling impact on the next release > > > now that this has been resolved. > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:56:09 -0500, Abrams, Howard A > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > +0 > > > > > > > > I suggest that the MyFaces custom components be moved to a > > subproject. A > > > > debate such as "Tree vs. Tree2" shouldn't hold up a release of the > > JSF > > > > implementation and API. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 5:56 AM > > > > > To: MyFaces Development > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] Two tree controls > > > > > > > > > > I propose a vote to end the tree vs tree2 controversey. Since it > > > > > seems that Oliver and I have reached an impasse (to put it > > mildly), I > > > > > move that we have two tree controls: tree and tree2 and let the > > user > > > > > decide which is best for them. > > > > > > > > > > While I think it is unfortunate that we cannot agree on a single > > new > > > > > tree control together this is probably the best course of action > > for > > > > > the sake of the team. So I'd like a vote on this so I can know > > for > > > > > sure how to go forward. > > > > > > > > > > I will start the voting ... +1 for me > > > > > > > > > > ps. I know we don't like voting but I think its important to have > > > > > voting for big decisions like this. Oliver and I have both put a > > lot > > > > > of time into the respective tree controls so its only fair that we > > ask > > > > > the group for direction on how to proceed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
