Comments interspersed.
On Apr 11, 2005 11:00 AM, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm forwarding Manfred's answer to the list (I assume he meant this
> for all of us.)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Apr 11, 2005 12:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposal: Modest Restructuring of MyFaces Project
> To: Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> On Apr 11, 2005 6:24 PM, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Proposed official name: Apache MyFaces
> > > Proposed short name: myfaces
> >
> > Is short name the name of the jar file/project name in CVS?
>
> CVS module name, JIRA name, ...
>
+1 for "myfaces".
>
> > 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.
>
> My intention was to signal new users more clearly that this library is
> independent of the myfaces implementation: myfaces-jsfcommons, a "JSF
> Commons Library" under the "MyFaces" brand. That was the idea behind,
> but perhaps I'm thinking too sophisticated :-)
> I'm ok with myfaces-commons too, of course.
>
I can see the intent, but "commons" also implies (at least from my
Jakarta Commons biased viewpoint :-) that the stuff here is generally
reusable, completely separate from MyFaces, and that doesn't seem
likely for what we've been describing here. Consider:
* support
* shared
* infrastructure
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> ok, agreed.
> What about the name "Collection" instead of "Components"? I think it
> is more precise, since this subproject will be a conglomeration of
> many different things: components, extensions, renderkits, bridges,
> addons, ...
>
gadgets? goodies?
Side note -- anything in here that grows into needing its own release
artifacts would want to be moved up a level in the hierarchy.
>
> > By the way, it sounds like you agree that the
> > API and Impl jars should be part of a single
> > implementation project right?
>
> Yes, IMHO, we are allowed to focus the user first, that needs both API
> and Impl at runtime. If we maintain a separate API jar and document
> it, that is enough for the user, that needs only one of the JARs for
> any special reason.
Combining the JARs will *really* do a disservice to any potential user
that is currently using the JSF RI (with pointers to separate
jsf-api.jar and jsf-impl.jar properties), but wants to try MyFaces.
>
> -M
>
Craig
