Ok, sorry. ;)
I do like the structure now. I am all for a structure which is easiest in development and deployment, and by getting rid of the externals, deployment has become much easier, and I have liked the first maven structure for development already. I suppose there won't be any changes from this first structure with respect to development, right? regards, Martin On 1/7/06, Bernd Bohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Martin, > > the resource issue is not a real problem, can solved later. > Please look at the latest Revised Reorg Proposal from Sean and me. > > Can you comment the proposed structure? > > Regards > > Bernd > > Martin Marinschek schrieb: > > @Sean, > > > > today, I'll try to spare an hour to think about that resources issue > > again. I still hope to find a solution ;) > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 1/7/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Yes, but until then, the clear winner is what makes it easiest to the > >>user, and that's Bernd's suggestion, right? > >> > >>the thing ought to work out of the box. > >> > >>regards, > >> > >>Martin > >> > >>On 1/6/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>And, once we get to JSF 1.2, "provided" is a clear > >>>winner because web containers will need to provide a JSF > >>>implementation. > >>> > >>>-- Adam > >>> > >>> > >>>On 1/6/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>On 1/6/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Anything that's a compile time dependency of library Foo > >>>>>where a user of Foo is responsible for supplying that dependency > >>>>>should be declared "provided". > >>>> > >>>>The Maven team usually puts it as "... can reasonably be expected to > >>>>be provided at runtime." But Maven 2.0 doesn't have anything in place > >>>>to deal with the "choice of implementations" situation, and so > >>>>'provided' is probably the best bet. > >>>> > >>>>This will put the responsibility of choosing an implementation on the > >>>>user-- either by declaring a dependency or installing it in the > >>>>container. (Or, I suppose, by using a container that already provides > >>>>it.) I think that's reasonable. > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>>Wendy > >>>> > >>> > >> > >>-- > >> > >>http://www.irian.at > >> > >>Your JSF powerhouse - > >>JSF Consulting, Development and > >>Courses in English and German > >> > >>Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > -- > Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development > Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com > phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
