>From: Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hi Gary! > > > > Tomahawk and Tobago have their own strategies too. Often they can > > play nicely together, but since they don't standardize on a single API > > for delivering these Web 2.0 features, they will never truly be > > interoperable (IMHO). > > > Yea, but thats why we should concentrate (IMHO). If we would like to get > out of line to the argument to being not compatible with each other > (which has been solved in many areas !) we should work together instead > of just fire up a new group - and we all still solve the same problems then. > > I think MyFaces will be the looser if we split due to the > "interoperability question". >
I agree that in a perfect scenario, we could refactor to a single API. However, the question is which solution is the best? They are all good working solutions - each having a considerable amount of sweat equity. > Compared to the "big player" (sun, oracle, exadel, jboss, .... - (if > they are at all ;-) )) the user will always think WE do something wrong > ..... Well, this is open source and they have the option to choose to contribute or make judgment on something they get for free :--). > > BTW: I can only speak for tomahawk, since tobago has gone a different > route in many terms I don't know if and how interoperable they are or > could be. > > Ciao, > Mario > Gary
