+1 for a separate jar. It's a good point that tomahawk should be split, just like jsf/core and jsf/html are split out. All of the validators, converters, and non-rendering components probably should go into tomahawk-core :) [Guess we probably better not use myfaces-core, but like Bill said, I don't care what name gets used. None of them sound appealing so far).
On 11/30/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First: > > my +1 for a separate jar, and myfaces-share or myfaces-commons.jar as > name - I don't mind either, I don't like core, though. > > @Volker: > > That's an interesting question. > > We might need to split up the components into two groups, and create a > new component pack name for render independent components - I wouldn't > put them into core or commons, whatever the name might be. We could be > creative again ;) > > regards, > > Martin > > On 11/30/05, Volker Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
