great, it is already implemented, try it out with the current source-base. regards,
Martin On 5/21/05, Jon Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW, this feature is very useful for us. > > -- Jon > > > On May 11, 2005, at 8:14 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote: > > > Ok, I have started off... > > > > - we can always get rid of the code again if it doesn't work out. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 5/11/05, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Thank you Sean. > >> > >> I have no problem to improve/change this later on. > >> As far as I'm concerned, backward compatibility isn't very > >> important yet > >> because our JSF applications are still relatively new and small. > >> > >> Sylvain. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 09:50 -0400, Sean Schofield wrote: > >> I agree with Kalle's sentiments that this is the nature of open > >> source > >> software. Actually not just open source software, but any > >> collaborative effort. Building a consensus takes time but in the end, > >> the thorough discussion benefits everyone. While the feature is > >> relatively simple and our spare time is precious, this is something > >> that affects all of us. Not every new feature or component will fall > >> into this category. Tree2 took a lot longer with all of the debate, > >> but in the end it was better because I got some good ideas from > >> people. > >> > >> In this case I think a vote is appropriate because there are some > >> strong reservations by some individuals and so Sylvain should have an > >> unambiguous answer as to how to proceed. We should also be willing to > >> change code after the fact if it results in an improvement. > >> > >> So I say lets go ahead with Sylvain's approach now and lets take a > >> look at what he comes up with. If we come up with a better solution > >> or an improvement to the existing solution lets not limit ourselves > >> with concerns of backwards compatability. > >> > >> So I will vote +1 for Sylvain's solution and reserve the right to > >> reopen the discussion later if we feel there are improvements to be > >> made. > >> > >> sean > >> > >> > >> On 5/11/05, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Sean & Kalle, > >>> > >>> I agree that this discussion helped to clarify some things, but > >>> I'm a > >>> > >> quite > >> > >>> worried by the time and efforts it takes to agree on such a small > >>> feature. > >>> I don't underestimate the necessity of having a well thought API, > >>> but as > >>> all of you, my time is spare, and I disagree that there is no > >>> harm in a > >>> prolonged discussion. > >>> If it's just too much effort to decide such issues, I should > >>> better do a > >>> hack on my own, and forget about including it in Myfaces. > >>> > >>> Please don't take this as an offense, it's just a general worry > >>> that this > >>> would afraid others like me of contributing anything else than > >>> bug fixes. > >>> I also dislike this voting process, but it is an attempt to keep > >>> this in a > >>> reasonable time frame, so please try to make your mind, but don't > >>> ask for > >>> another week of emails & extensive explanations. > >>> > >>> As for the summary of the options, I agree with the one Martin > >>> just did > >>> (thanks for your help by the way). > >>> > >>> Sylvain. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 15:26 -0400, Sean Schofield wrote: > >>> > >>>> While discussing this has taken a long time, I don't see any > >>>> wrong in > >>>> it. It's still cheap and easy compared to implementing different > >>>> components, then comparing their implementations, fixing > >>>> possible bugs > >>>> etc. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I agree with Kalle that there is no harm in a prolonged > >>> discussion on > >>> this. If memory serves me, we have only been discussing this for a > >>> week or so. I think we should consider postponing the vote and > >>> taking > >>> a little more time with this. > >>> > >>> My reasoning is that this solves a problem that many of us > >>> (including > >>> myself) need to have solved. Lets pick an approach that we can all > >>> live with. > >>> > >>> On the other hand, we owe it to Sylvain to not drag this out. Lets > >>> try to resolve this quickly but also give it the consideration it > >>> deserves. Also, the answer to this problem involves several "design > >>> principles" that we should probably agree upon. For instance, > >>> concern > >>> over bloated attributes, mutating components, etc. > >>> > >>> I need some time to re-read this very extensive thread. Maybe > >>> Sylvain > >>> or Kalle can summarize the options for us (Option #1, #2, etc.) > >>> People can add new options (give them a new number) and we can > >>> have a > >>> quick discussion and reference these options by # and discuss > >>> pros and > >>> cons. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Kalle > >>>> > >>> > >>> sean > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >
