I seem to recall hearing that ADF uses a custom viewhandler, much like tobago. That's going to make it difficult to trivially merge Tomahawk and ADF .
On 12/28/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 12/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll pipe up from the peanut gallery here: > > > > One thing to consider is whether a distinction will be meaningful going > forward. So, if someone comes along with a new component they want to > contribute, will it make sense for them to ask "should I put this in > Tomahawk or X"? > > This is an area that, IMHO, needs some serious thought from the MyFaces > team. My expectation is that the Oracle donation will include a > comprehensive framework around the specific library of widgets, and not just > a repository of independent widgets. My fervent hope is that the MyFaces > team will choose to integrate the existing MyFaces widgets with that > framework, instead of having multiple disjoint code bases. > > This is especially important in the JavaScript arena. The last thing you > want is for MyFaces users to have to download duplicate functionality into > the browser because they happened to use widgets that required different > frameworks to support them. It's even worse when those widgets all came from > MyFaces. > > Also, several of the existing MyFaces widgets are based on Prototype. This > *will* cause users problems when they deploy to a portal environment, or > when they try to use other libraries, or just other JavaScript code in their > pages. I've mentioned this before, but people don't seem to have taken this > seriously (or they just don't care, which I hope isn't the case!). Migrating > those widgets to use the Oracle framework, once it arrives, will almost > certainly resolve these issues. > > -- > Martin Cooper > > > > Also -- will combining them cause confusion in people's minds? My feeling > is that few people know what Tomahawk means, so you can combine them without > battling some preconcieved notion. > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > On 12/28/05, Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Martin Marinschek wrote: > > > > > > >So what other suggestions are there for the naming of ADF-Faces? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be missing something here, but according to Ted the intention is > > > to incorporate Oracle's contribution into MyFaces, so any new name for > > > ADF is likely to be temporary only and not that important an issue. > > > Also, it doesn't appear Oracle's donation will ever move past incubation > > > status into its own project, because again it will be absorbed by > > > MyFaces, correct? > > > > > > Glen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
