On 2/22/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My initial impression (now that the administrata is out of the way) is that the subproject sounds useful, now that I see that we aren't making yet another component library. I think it's an excellent idea to get better examples of JSF and JPA working together since these are now considered standards.
right. I'll check that stuff out and I am thinking about adding it to my trinidad_spring_shale_jpa demo
I am slightly concerned that we're spreading our focus a bit with this subproject. Up to this point, we've provided a JSF implementation and component libraries. Providing an application framework on top of that seems like something that would fit better with what Shale is doing. However, I don't think that's a showstopper, just something to keep in mind.
perhaps this is an area, where we can work with shale together on JSR 299 (web beans) I need to ping Geir on how we can create a apache wide mailing list for that JSR, for those committers, signed the NDA -M
On 2/22/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not an arbitrary and unnecessary split - as: > > - it's not a component library, it is about glue-code > - it works with any component library, not only tomahawk > - it has dependencies to Spring, and I personally don't think tomahawk > should have some > > regards, > > Martin > > On 2/22/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You've answered some of the management issues, but you still haven't > > addressed what the difference between "tomahawk and/or sandbox" and > > "fusion" will be. > > > > From my understanding so far, this is still just a collection of > > components, and I don't see why it needs to be separate from the > > sandbox or tomahawk. Our stated goal in the past has been to unify > > the various subprojects (ie, merge tomahawk and trinidad; merge > > tomahawk and tobago). This seems contrary to that goal since fusion > > (an ironic name in this context) is making an arbitrary and > > unnecessary split of the tomahawk project. > > > > > > > > On 2/22/07, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Mike! > > > > In the future, please remember that such reviews and conclusions > > > > *must* be made on the mailing list. > > > Ok, sorry for this. > > > > > > > As to the actual merits of the subproject, I don't understand what > > > > value it adds to have this in both the sandbox and in "fusion". How > > > > do the two subprojects differ? Is it just a matter of different > > > > dependencies? > > > The parts in the sandbox will deleted once the setup of the new project > > > has settled down. > > > Afterwards a release of MyFaces Fusion (or whatever name it will have in > > > the end) should follow soon. > > > > > > For the user it is easier to recognize than that there is just another > > > competitor in this area (JSF, ORM, etc) > > > > > > > > > Ciao, > > > Mario > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
-- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
