Re: [proosal] Changes to sandbox

[Bill Dudney]

Martin's point seals it for me.

Lets keep sandbox, tobago separate. The last thing we want is  
clashing tag names :-)

I am also against a 'special target'. I'd prefer if we could address  
this during the move to maven2 (when/if that ever happens).

TTFN,

-bd-

On Sep 26, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:

Sylvain,

We wouldn't keep things in sandbox forever.  I was just making the
point that you could download the latest myfaces version and still use
whatever version of sandbox you are using in your
development/production system.

You eventually have to do the "search and replace" as Martin is saying
but you can do so at the time of your choice (and still benefit from
the non-sandbox improvements in the nightlies or official releases.)

-1 for the special target.

Its a lot of extra maintenance and the only reason I am hearing for
this is convenience (you don't have to change your JSP when a
component is promoted.)

sean

On 9/26/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Sylvain,

We wouldn't keep things in sandbox forever.  I was just making the
point that you could download the latest myfaces version and still  
use
whatever version of sandbox you are using in your
development/production system.

You eventually have to do the "search and replace" as Martin is  
saying
but you can do so at the time of your choice (and still benefit from
the non-sandbox improvements in the nightlies or official releases.)

-1 for the special target.

Its a lot of extra maintenance and the only reason I am hearing for
this is convenience (you don't have to change your JSP when a
component is promoted.)

sean

On 9/26/05, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 Sean,

 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