And, being not familiar with tobago, the million dollar question: couldn't be tobago and tomahawk work together. Couldn't we think of a way to success on this? Am I speaking nonsense?
Regards, Bruno On 2/14/06, Volker Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sean Schofield wrote: > > Volker, > > > > Interesting proposal but I don't we have to address this just yet. > > But since you brought it up, do you think its possible that ADF and > > Tobago could merge into a single project? I don't know enough about > > either to say for sure. > > I don't think so, should be easier to merge adf in tomahawk, but i don't > know mutch about adf. > > > > > I'm -1 on having saveState in 3 separate projects (tomahawk, tobago > > and adf.) Why would it need to be in commons when it could just be in > > tomahawk? Is there anything in tobago that *requires* save state? Or > > is more accurate to say tobago provides a save state and so does > > tomahawk? Again, I'm not too familiar with tobago ATM (but I will > > learn!) > > tobago has no saveState, and did not require it, but i like the ability > to use it (and other tomahawk goodies) in applications. But none of the > rendering components could used in tobago. I think adding the full > tomahawk.jar to a application will mislead to use also non compatible > components from the lib. > > Regards, > Volker > > > > > Sean > > > > On 2/14/06, Volker Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>+1 for jira split, imho it's needed for different release cycles. > >> > >>But before doing so we should think about another distributed jar file > >>we may want, I think we should have one :-). > >> > >>I had mentioned before when talking about naming for commons.jar, we > >>should have another jar for shared components/classes between tomahawk, > >>tobago( and adf?). Non rendering tags like aliasBean, saveState, > >>validators and other stuff which could used in both. > >> > >>I don't like to have impl depends on this, so commons.jar is imho not > >>the right place for those. > >> > >>Regards, > >> Volker > >> > >>Erik Gustavson wrote: > >> > >>>It'll also make sense once ADF Faces gets into the mix. > >>> > >>>+1 for Jira split, esp. when tomahawk and core, etc... start having > >>>different release cycles. > >>> > >>>+1 for the snapshot naming convention > >>> > >>>+1 for Tomahawk components being listed as Jira components... that would > >>>make it very easy to assess the maturity of any given component for an > >>>end user. > >>> > >>>"commons" would make sense as a Jira component of MyFaces. What other > >>>Jira components would make sense under MyFaces then? > >>> > >>>commons > >>>(web) site > >>>documentation > >>>impl > >>>build (maven) > >> > >>-- > >>Don't answer to From: address! > >>Mail to this account are droped if not recieved via mailinglist. > >>To contact me direct create the mail address by > >>concatenating my forename to my senders domain. > >> > > > > > > -- > Don't answer to From: address! > Mail to this account are droped if not recieved via mailinglist. > To contact me direct create the mail address by > concatenating my forename to my senders domain. >
