There's several things in here we might want to adress:
1) moving renderer independent stuff out of tomahawk into a separate jar (e.g.: alias-bean). This will need a third repackaging of shared. I'm not so sure about this one. I'd rather have tobago become compatible (not merging - compatible) with tomahawk. 2) moving renderer dependent stuff from tomahawk into a new common jar (e.g.: dojo javascript, which is of course renderer-dependent; for an WML renderer the script might be different or not there at all) I'd refrain from that - I'd only want to have a common.jar for some base utility classes, which are not about to change very often (yes, like the HTML class, and maybe some MessageUtils - maybe also our version of JSFUtils); this utility package should IMHO not include anything renderer specific. 3) Moving dojo stuff from sandbox from tomahawk +1, this is independent of the blocker issues (it might only be dependent of 2, but I'm -1 on 2), so we can vote and then act separately. 4) fixing blocker issues well, obviously it would be great if we would be able to fix them. I'll have a look at whatever I can do early next week. regards, Martin On 9/15/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, I also have some changes that I want to commit that I've been holding off on. So you're not alone in the desire for things to get going. It may be as you hint below that we simply have to maintain the patches in two branches. On 9/15/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Kienenberger schrieb: > > I don't see it as being cleared up. > > > > The points that we need to have a new 1.1.4 branch, and that branch > > needs to include at least 3 blocker fixes still hasn't been addressed. > > If you make your changes now, we either have to accept them as part > > of the 1.1.4 branch, accept the blocker issues as part of the 1.1.4 > > release, or track patches for these issues separately in both branches > > in a temporally-disjoin manner. > > > Ok Mike thanks for holding me back, I assumed the situation > has cleared up since Wendy said, no big problem to fork from an older > version. > > Have in mind a trunk fork might be problematic anyway > there have been some adjustments in tomahawk the last three weeks > to improve compatibility with Trinidad/ADF > I am not sure how this affects the rest of the codebase. > Thomas might know more about it. > > (From my side it was just adjustments on the dojo codebase > and controls so nothing is really affected) > >
-- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
