The "shared code" issue was misleading in Sean's first mail. In fact it was a typo - Sean, please correct me if I missed something. John, to get your confidence back ;-) please be assured, there is not a single class that is shared between api and impl in a way that makes api depend on impl. The "shared classes" we speek of are shared between impl and components (aka tomahawk).
-Manfred 2005/5/27, John Fallows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 5/27/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Can someone please elaborate on what the "shared" code contains and > > > why it is in "quotes"? :-) > > > > This refers to the code currently in the trunk under src/share. It > > refers to code that is used in both the implentation as well as the > > custom components. > > Thanks. I would recommend a strict dependency relationship from > implementation to api only, and not the reverse. By having this > "shared" code (which is really part of the implementation) used by the > custom components in the public api, the dependency relationship is > effectively going from api to implementation. Other parts of the > implementation obviously do depend on the api, as they should. > However, now we have a cyclic dependency between api and > implementation, even though we are pretending that we don't. :-) > > > The tomahawk extensions would benefit from an API / Implementation > > split to provide greater implementation flexibility over time. > > > > myfaces-tomahawk-1.1.0.tar.gz > > myfaces-tomahawk-api.jar > > myfaces-tomahawk-impl.jar > > > > Have you considered providing a demo web application that showcases > > both standard and tomahawk features? > > This would provide a useful out-of-the-box experience for end-users. > > > Where would javadoc and any end-user documentation be bundled? > > How about source zips to help developers to debug into MyFaces code > > from their application code? > > Both of these are important for application developers. > > Kind Regards, > John Fallows. >
