Also, see the new thread discussing the SVN reorg. We can resolve this with "SVN magic" instead of build magic. Even more elegant IMO. Struts uses a similar approach.
sean On 5/31/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Forget my argument, we should have both the code and the classes of > share copied to both the implementation and the components via build > magic, you are absolutely right. > > We do that today, anyways, so there shouldn't be much of a change. > > If you need implementation and components, just take myfaces-all.jar, > and there are no problems with different versions then. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 5/31/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I believe it is much more intuitive to have a shared package for both > > the components and the implementation to use instead of doing build > > wizardry and copying the shared codebase to both implementation and > > the components. > > > > You are just creating redundancy (even if it is automatically > > executed) like that, and even more, you can get problems if you have > > the shared code in both the implementation and the components and you > > get different versions of the code... > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > On 5/30/05, John Fallows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 5/30/05, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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). > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying, Manfred. :-) > > > (and btw, I have every confidence that MyFaces will be a great success) > > > > > > On the issue of dependency between impl and tomahawk components - it > > > would be ideal if there were zero dependencies upon the impl codebase. > > > I don't believe it is feasible to reverse the dependency direction, > > > and have impl depend on tomahawk components, since the MyFaces impl > > > should be able to stand alone. > > > > > > One possibility that eliminates this issue is to repackage the shared > > > implementation code (automatically during build) into each > > > implementation codebase. I have seen other projects do this, > > > especially for package-private utility classes that are needed by > > > classes in both the private implementation and the public API, but > > > without exposing those utilities in the public API contract. > > > > > > Alternatively, rather than weaving build magic, some of these shared > > > classes might be promoted into the public API for everyone to use. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > John Fallows. > > > > > >
