OK thanks for the compromise Sylvain. I will start tweaking the build file shortly.
sean On 9/26/05, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree. > > > 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
