Well, my reasoning for changing it was that the users would see - at one glance - which myfaces-libs they have in their lib-folders.
Thing is also that if we go down the "myfaces"-road with sandbox, but not with tomahawk, there will be a discrepancy, right? regards, Martin On 1/7/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I kind of like it just as tomahawk.jar. Its easier to pronounce and > doesn't get confused with myfaces implementation. We don't want our > users to assume that they need the MyFaces implementation. That's my > reasoning for keeping it the way it is. I'm open to changing it if > the other commiters agree with you. > > Sean > > On 1/7/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > @Sean, Bernd: sounds good. Let's go with that! My project setup in > > intellij is automatically generated anyways ;) > > > > One final comment: If it's not done already - let's also change the > > name for tomahawk to myfaces-tomahawk... > > > > all other modules have that prefix already in place. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 1/7/06, Bernd Bohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sean Schofield schrieb: > > > > Quick question: > > > > > > > > Do we have to name it: myfaces/core/trunk/myfaces-api/pom.xml in order > > > > for the module to be called myfaces-api? I would prefer just api ... > > > > > > > It should be myfaces-api and myfaces-impl. Please look at the maven svn > > > structure. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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
