Martin Marinschek schrieb: > 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. > It is indeed independend...
Are there still any objections for moving dojo from the sandbox into tomahawk on the trunk? Even if there might be another refork of the 1.1.4 codebase? The main concern is interference into the existing tom code, which cannot happen since my infrastructure is independend from a tomahawk view (it just utilizes tom code but not vice versa)
