+1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 10:34 AM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: uidata, svn reorg and tomahawk
>
> I confess to forgetting the abbreviation taxonomy, but does "impl"
> below refer to the JSF container implementation? If so, I would
> suggest that you do *not* want Tomahawk or the examples to have direct
> dependencies on those classes -- because that locks them in to only
> the MyFaces implementation (a current example of this being the way
> that Tiles is integrated with MyFaces). Thus (again, if my
> interpretation is correct), you'd want the following as your direct
> dependency chains:
>
> api <- share
>
> api, share <- impl
>
> api, share <- tomahawk
>
> api, share <- sandbox (perhaps depend on tomahawk or impl also for
> some use cases)
>
> api, share, tomahawk <- examples
>
> Right?
>
> Craig
>
> On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm playing around with the reorg and trying to get started on
> > building tests and I've run into the following snag;
> >
> > The UIData has a dependency on
> >
> > org.apache.myfaces.component.html.util.HtmlComponentUtils
> >
> > which is currently in the tomahawk project. This causes a dependency
> > on tomahawk from api (a circular dependency).
> >
> > My understanding of the dependency tree is as follows
> >
> > api <- share <- impl
> >
> > api, share, impl <- tomahawk
> >
> > api, share, impl <- sandbox
> >
> > api, share, impl, tomahawk <- examples
> >
> > Since the only (apparent to me anyway) additional functionality of
> > HtmlComponentUtils.getClientID is to consider 'forceId' shouldn't
> > this call be in a myfaces specific subclass in tomahawk instead of
up
> > in api? Users can't use 'forceId' unless they are using the x: tags
> > anyway correct?
> >
> > HtmlDataTableHack appears to be the best place currently to put this
> > functionality.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -bd-
> >
>
