Mike's arguments are valid. To make it easier for developers out there, it might make sense to exclude other changes from this minor. That would reduce the problem sources for those "outside" developers...
Alexander > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:06 PM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: Refactor Commons to org.apache.myfaces.commons ? > > The benefits outweight the downsides. Currently, there's no guarantee > that any particular Myfaces release will support your custom > components if you have a dependency on our classes. > > Also, up to this point, if you're depending on Myfaces classes for > your custom components, it's difficult to know if you're depending on > API, IMPL, COMMONS, or TOMAHAWK pieces. This should make it far > clearer, and make it easier for developers in the long run. > > A separate commons release is also new enough that it shouldn't be too > big of an issue. > > The sooner we start doing things the "right" way, the sooner people > can feel safe about using commons to build their components. > > On 2/17/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well it's a package refactoring. So, each dependend (or using) class > > in impl and tomahawk must be aligned as well. I'm feeling > much warmer > > when doing this within my IDE, which has total knowledge of all > > dependencies. ;-) > > > > BTW, is everyone really aware of what I'm proposing here? > > We have an already released myfaces-commons-1.1.2 lib with > package structure > > org.apache.myfaces.* > > The next myfaces-commons-1.1.3 will have package structure > > org.apache.myfaces.commons.* > > This is not what normally should happen between minor > release changes, right? > > At least we must make prominent notice about this in commons 1.1.3 > > release notes. > > Do you think there are already people out there, using > myfaces-commons > > as base for there own components? They might be angry, no? ;-) > > > > Everyone really sure? Really no objections? > > :-) > > > > Manfred > > > > > > On 2/17/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just do the svn move manuall. Its not too hard. > > > > > > On 2/17/06, Arvid Hülsebus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It looks like he had only problems with older versions > of IDEA or the > > > > Subversion client. We can't report any problems with IDEA 5.1. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Arvid > > > > > > > > Martin Marinschek wrote: > > > > > +1 from me. definitely. > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > On 2/17/06, Arvid Hülsebus > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Normally it does, but there are some limitations. I > will ask Udo when he > > > > >> is back -- in about 30 minutes. He gained some > experience restructuring > > > > >> our repository for the donation of the Tobago source. > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards, > > > > >> Arvid > > > > >> > > > > >> Manfred Geiler wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>>> pps. Use svn move to do this so we don't lose our history > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> Does anyone know if IntelliJ does "svn move" behind > the scenes when > > > > >>> moving (refactoring) classes? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > >>> Manfred > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > > > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > > > > Courses in English and German > > > > > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
