On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 14:47 -0600, Bill Dudney wrote:
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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
