On 1/10/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > @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.*". > > I am absolutly +1 on repackage in line with MyFaces rules. The wrapper > thing cames only up during thinking about "existing" users. However, > lets go the *pure* MyFaces road.
I definitely would like to minimize the pain for existing customers, but in the long run, making life easy for the existing customers of the "oracle.adf" codebase is, I think, a problem for Oracle developers. Which, ya know, might be me :), but not the me that's wearing the MyFaces hat, if that makes any sense. -- Adam > > 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"? > > Makes sense to me too. > > -Matthias > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > On 1/7/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No, > > > > > > don't get me wrong - we don't have to fix this before getting into > > > incubator, just on the exit. And I'd definitely combine this exit with > > > a major release, and on a major release you should be able to change > > > package names, and your users will accept that. > > > > > > But it's John and Jonas call on how and when they want to handle this. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > On 1/7/06, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > What we can do is providing *wrapper* for the package stuff. ADF Faces > > > > > is software, which is already in use by lot's of people, so... if we > > > > > change *all* packages, we bother some users IMO. So we can set the > > > > > *old* as deprecated and provide *new* org.apache.** package. > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if it is ok... starting an incubation with different packages > > > > > then org.apche.** > > > > > > > > > Not hat my meaning has any weight here, but with modern IDEs it should > > > > easily be possible to do some search and replace on the code. > > > > Or we can provide a simple ant script to do this. It should be that hard > > > > to replace using the fqn name of the changed classes. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Mario > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > > Courses in English and German > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > Zülpicher Wall 12, 239 > 50674 Köln > http://www.wessendorf.net > mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >
