On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 20:51 -0500, Mike Kienenberger wrote: > On 1/16/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can't see any better solution other than some of > > the early complicated proposals that included automated renaming of all > > the "commons" classes so they could be bundled with both impl and > > tomahawk without conflict. > > Yes, repackaging isn't just a better solution -- it's the only solution. > > Otherwise we won't be able to upgrade Tomahawk without upgrading the > Myfaces implementation. And at some point, we all desire for the > myfaces-impl to finalize, while allowing tomahawk to move forward.
Hmm..good point. If myfaces-commons is deployed at the container level, but a new version of tomahawk wants a later myfaces-commons that's a problem. It's very bad style to require a container's libs to be upgraded in order to deploy a webapp, even if the new myfaces-commons jarfile is supposed to be binary-compatible with the old one. Cheers, Simon
