It also seems ok to me, I think that it is a good consensus and having the tld separated is enough to me...
Bruno 2005/9/26, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I like this approach too. sandbox.jar is separate but part of the > release. > > I'm equally OK with putting the sandbox stuff into the myfaces- > all.jar with a separate tld (i.e. don't do the 'all' tld). Users wont > be confused because its in a separate tld. > > I don't agree that its a lazy/not lazy thing, its just simpler to > have one jar file with the whole thing instead of multiple. > > TTFN, > > -bd- > > On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Sean Schofield wrote: > > >> Issue 2: making an exception for sandbox in the build: > >> > >> @Sean: Still, I think we shouldn't make an exception to the build for > >> the sandbox.jar when releasing - I'd say we just release it as well, > >> clearly indicating that this is experimental stuff. > >> > > > > I might be persuaded to accept this route. It would certainly be > > easier (we wouldn't have to worry about skipping the sandbox.) > > > > So we would get rid of myfaces all TLD and *not* include sandbox in > > myfaces-all.jar right? Everything would be in sandbox.jar and thar > > jar would be available in both the nightly and release builds? > > > > Is that what you are proposing? > > > > sean > > > >
