Hi, in my oppinion a jar for the shared files is the best way, but before fixing a name: I think there could be a need for another jar.
There are some components in towmahawk.jar which also could be usefull in combination with tobago. E.g. i don't like depend on towmahawk.jar just to use t:saveState or t:aliasBean. Because of differend renderkid ids it is not possible to mix tobago and towmahawk components. But i like the option to use render independend components also with tobago. Could we put those components into the 'core', or however, jar ? Or should we create a own artifact for those components? If so we should think about this name here also. Regards Volker Bill Dudney wrote: > +1 on the structural change > +0 on name change either way - An argument can be made for any of the > 3 proposed names (share, core or commons) so I'm open to any of them > and let those with passion on one of the 3 sort it out ;-) > > TTFN, > > -bd- > > > On Nov 30, 2005, at 1:10 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote: > >> 2005/11/30, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> I wanted to resurrect one of our favorite threads ... "Should the >>> shared code be in its own jar?" >>> >>> The reason why I bring this up now is that I'm starting to experiment >>> with an M2 build for MyFaces. In addition to some of the arguments >>> made earlier we can now add Maven to the list of reasons why we might >>> want to consider this. >>> >>> From my early exploration of Maven it seems like the shared stuff can >>> be handled best by making the impl and tomahawk subprojects have a >>> dependency on the share project. In the past I have not been too wild >>> about the shared jar idea but I think Maven may be able to help keep >>> us and our users informed as to the exact dependencies when using >>> MyFaces or Tomahawk. >>> >>> First off, I would suggest we call it *core* instead of share. I >>> think "core" helps to imply that it is mandatory. They already know >>> they need api and impl (if they have read the JSF spec.) The "core" >>> wording will let them know they need this also. >>> >>> Maven has some cool stuff for maintaining and documenting >>> dependencies. The tomahawk page of the website can automatically be >>> updated so that for each new release of tomahawk, the dependency list >>> will be updated. Its also possible that we can have tomahawk depend >>> on an earlier version of the core then the impl. So we can compile >>> against older versions that might be in the third party J2EE distros >>> (like JBoss). Anyways, the point is that Maven may finally provide >>> the best solution to this problem so far. >> >> >> This confirms my feelings that I always had. Although I nearly know >> nothing about Maven I start to like it ;-) >> My definite >> +1 on having a separate jar with all the stuff from the share dir >> >> Regarding the name: I agree that "share" might not be the best of all >> names for the end user jar. Although - from a source code view - this >> name perfectly describes what it stands for and how the code is used. >> >> Having said that I'm not too happy with "core" as an alternative name. >> -0.5 on "core", because: >> As I understand it, the core of a software product is the part where >> all strings are tied up and the basic processing is done. The core of >> MyFaces sits in Impl and API. FacesServlet, UIComponentBase and >> UIComponentTag are those classes that come to my mind when I think of >> the "core". >> The shared classes are a loosely coupled set of utilities, helpers and >> convenient base classes. Think of it as kind of commons classes for >> JSF. Not having doublechecked this yet, I have the feeling that most >> classes of our shared code are even compatible to foreign >> implementations (RI). So, why not give it a life of its own and head >> for that "commons" direction? So, my proposal is to call it >> "myfaces-commons.jar" in the meantime while heading for >> "commons-jsf.jar" in the long run - after having coordinated this with >> Apache Jakarta Commons guys, of course. We already have some good >> connections to the Jakarta team, right? >> Yes, sure, comparing our code to Jakarta Commons quality (javadoc in >> particular), this might be a long and cumbersome path... ;-) >> >> What do you think? >> >> Manfred > > -- Don't answer to From: address! Mail to this account are droped if not recieved via mailinglist. To contact me direct create the mail address by concatenating my forename to my senders domain.
