If you strongly believe in this, couldn't we have 2 "dist-all" ?
One that would drop the sandbox stuffs, and another one (whatever the name) that would be just a copy of the current one.
I don't want to get in the way of the release process, but I still believe that this all in one jar with the sandbox and the all tld file is important.
I don't care so much about releasing it, but for those that use the head and work with/on the sandbox, it's a real helper.
We should also decide about the tld generation process, because as I said in my previous email, the current process isn't really appropriate.
And keeping forever snipset of sandbox's component in the sandbox tld, even after they moved to tomahawk will make this file bigger and bigger and very bug prone.
Sylvain.
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 15:52 -0400, Sean Schofield wrote:
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 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >
