On 1/9/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
if someone does the work ;)
regards,
Martin
On 1/10/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Winer wrote:
> > @Matthias, I'd rather not have any wrappers - the plan here
> > is to repackage in line with MyFaces rules. I would, however,
> > strongly like to keep the high-level concept of separating our
> > public APIs - like component classes - from private internal
> > implementation details - like renderers and tag classes. We
> > do this now with an "oracle.adf" package for public stuff
> > and "oracle.adfinternal" for private stuff, much like Sun puts
> > public APIs in "javax.*" and private in "com.sun.*".
> >
> > What would others think about repackaging org.apache.myfaces.custom
> > to separate the renderers, tags, and components? org.apache.myfaces
> > already does this for the "ext" stuff. Or, more generally, separating
> > further the "things that are used internally in MyFaces" from "things
> > we expect developers outside of MyFaces to rely on"?
> >
>
> +1 on putting components and renderers/tags into separate packages in
> tomahawk, just like myfaces does for api/impl.
>
> I don't believe it's as important as for the spec stuff, but it still
> helps to make it clear what is a change that affects *users* of tomahawk
> components, vs changes that break only *customisers* of tomahawk
> components (a much smaller community).
>
> It's a moderate amount of work, but not huge. And it can be done
> incrementally...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
--
Author Pro JSF and Ajax: Building Rich Internet Components
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10044
