Bill, We need to get it it out of myfaces-all.jar if we don't want to mix the faces-config.xml with tomahawk and sandbox stuff (which IMO we don't want to do.)
sean On 9/26/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 on the proposal as outlined by Sean here. > > I don't agree that its that important to get sandbox out of myfaces- > all people would know the difference with a separate tld but I'm also > fine with leaving it as a separate jar file. > > TTFN, > > -bd- > > On Sep 26, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Sean Schofield wrote: > > > Let's make sure we are on the same page here (some stuff I read in > > Sylvain's reply leads me to believe we are interpreting Martin's > > suggestion differently.) > > > > Here is a new proposal ... > > > > 1.) Remove any reference to sandbox from myfaces-all.jar. Zero traces > > of sandbox in myfaces-all.jar. This means no faces-config, no TLD > > (including the all TLD) and no class files. > > > > 2.) Include sandbox.jar in both the nightly and release builds. This > > means that there will be no more "-Dskip.sandbox=true" and that the > > sandbox directories will always be available when building. The > > sandbox.jar will contain its own TLD and class files. > > > > That's how I understood Martin's proposal. Either way this is what I > > am proposing now. I am prepared to compromise by including sandbox > > stuff in the distro but my position is that it should not be part of > > all and that we shouldn't sandbox stuff in with the TLD or > > faces-config.xml for tomahawk. > > > > sean > > > > On 9/26/05, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> One more thing about those TLDs. > >> > >> I find that having one big tld for each project is quite bad, as > >> it's hard > >> to read and to maintain. It also promotes commit conflicts when 2 > >> developer > >> are working concurrently on different components. > >> Maybe a better approach would be to have tld snipsets in each > >> component's > >> directory, and to generate each tld in the build process. > >> > >> Any thoughts about this ? > >> > >> Sylvain. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 14:57 -0400, Sylvain Vieujot wrote: > >> > >> I too think it makes sens to release the sandbox into the myfaces- > >> all.jar. > >> > >> But if we do that, then this jar needs to contain a faces- > >> config.xml that > >> merges the ones from tomahawk & from the sandbox (build file, > >> merge-sandbox > >> target). > >> The process for merging the faces-config.xml files & the tld is > >> basically > >> the same. That's why I think of it as a logical step. > >> I don't see how removing it will improve the code. > >> I didn't knew we would keep the tld fragments in the sandbox's > >> tld once > >> they are promoted to tomahawk, and that was the main idea behind > >> the "all > >> tld". > >> But, are we sure it's the good solution to keep old components > >> forever in > >> the sanbox tld. It'll be increasingly hard to maintain and to keep > >> synchronized with the one of tomahawk. > >> So, I prefer the path of having an all in one tld, but to clearly > >> mark it > >> as unstable as it contains sandbox's components. > >> > >> Sylvain. > >> > >> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 12:12 -0600, Bill Dudney wrote: > >> 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 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >
