> "Apache Faces" (aka "the JSF umbrella")
> ==============================
> I personally like the idea of that "umbrella" project that could grow
> to become the home of all JSF related Apache stuff. But, my proposal
> would be to do it right now with the name we already have: "Apache
> MyFaces" Why not let become MyFaces the umbrella itself and have
> subprojects with different (nick) names?
That's really what we have now and I am fine with that. My only point
was that we not worry about some of the long term goals that we have
discussed such as collaboration with Shale, etc. Some have called
that idea "Apache Faces." Regardless what you call it, I think that
should wait (and I think you agree.) I was just trying to emphasize
that we should focus on dividing the *existing* code for now.
> Proposed official name: Apache MyFaces
> Proposed short name: myfaces
Is short name the name of the jar file/project name in CVS?
> Shared sources
> ============
> What's in my mind is something like a "commons-jsf" subproject. Since
> our shared sources do not depend on our specific implementation, this
> would make perfect sense, IMHO. It could grow to a convenient library
> of helpers, utils and base classes for JSF that is available and
> usable for every JSF developer.
> Proposed official name: Apache MyFaces JSF Commons
> Proposed short name: myfaces-jsfcommons
I was proposing that we share the source but not actually create a
subproject for this common stuff. But I can see your argument for a
separate subproject. Ultimately it might be less confusing to have it
as its own subproject instead of having the source "shared" between
two projects.
I favor the following names isntead:
MyFaces Commons
myfaces-commons
These are a little less wordy. I think we can drop JSF from the name
since it should be obvious and I think we can drop Apache because its
a subproject and I don't think we need the extra words to describe it.
> Components
> =========
> I think there are two opportunities:
> 1. One major components and extensions subproject ("collection") under
> the MyFaces umbrella that is itself divided into several subprojects:
> Components and/or Extensions bundled together by look&feel or
> functional or popularity.
> 2. Several component/extension projects directly under the umbrealla
> and beside the implementation and the jsf commons project.
> For clearness I personally would prefer the former.
> Proposed official name: Apache MyFaces JSF Collection
> Proposed short name: myfaces-coll
I agree with Craig on this one. Too complicated to have subprojects
of subprojects. Lets just have one components subproject MyFaces
Components (aka Tomohawk or a codeword of your choice.) We should
take his suggestion seriously as he and the Struts team have a lot of
experience managing all of the subprojects in Struts.
Different Look & Feel can basically be achieved by different
renderkits (right?) So we could could possible have different
directories for diffferent render kits but I don't think we need the
complexity of the additional subprojects.
> Sandbox
> =======
> I would rather make this a subproject of Components (see structure below).
Even though this is related to components I think it should be its own
subproject. My reasoning is basically the same as Craig's warning
about too many subprojects.
> Project Structure
> =============
> So, my proposed structure is:
>
> Apache MyFaces
> |-- Apache MyFaces JSF Implementation (myfaces-impl)
> |-- Apache MyFaces JSF Commons (myfaces-jsfcommons)
> |-- Apache MyFaces JSF Collection (myfaces-coll)
> |-- Apache MyFaces Components (aka "Tomahawk")
> |-- Apache MyFaces "Sandbox"
> |-- other subprojects to follow...
> Names
> =====
> Perhaps we could also start kind of a brainstorming for (sub)project
> names right now. I want to start with already proposed names and quick
> thoughts of mine:
> Implementation: "Vista", "Seating", "Baseplate"
> Commons: "JSF Commons", "Commons JSF"
> Component Collection: "Treasury", "Wardrobe", "Hutch"
> Components: "Tomahawk", "Jewelry"
> Sandbox: "Sandbox", "Rompers"
I don't have any strong preferences. I think we only really need a
name for the components subproject. This will help distinguish it
from the MyFaces implementation and could be a good shorthand way of
referring to components vs. implementation. Somone suggested Tomohawk
a while ago and I do like that one. Ultimately I could live with
almost anything.
> Please note that we are discussing the organisational structure of
> MyFaces not the technical realization of this. This is what has to be
> decided very soon. After that we should focus on the resulting and
> necessary changes for
> - CVS/SVN
> - Java package structure
> - Homepage structure
> - Jira modules
> - Mailing lists
Good idea. Lets get the project structure squared away first and then
talk about the rest. By the way, it sounds like you agree that the
API and Impl jars should be part of a single
implementation project right?
> -Manfred
sean
