On 5/4/07, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Are we looking to define internal utilities shared among
> Trinidad/Tomahawk/Tobago?
yes that's my understanding
> - Are we looking to define public APIs shared among these
> projects?
yes common api for these projects but not necessarily immutable
> - Are we going to have a common package name for all
> such code?
+1
> IMO, we should:
> - Have no components at all in here, at least to start,
> whether or not they render markup.
Definitely +1
> - Use a common package name
+1
> - Be very cautious and slow as we build this up, being *really*
> sure about the APIs we're adding. This should be a foundational
> stone for a long time.
+1 for go slow
> - Start enforcing a public vs. private API split for real, and
> be rigorous about when we change public APIs without
> preserving backwards compatibility.
+0
it would be nice to have stable public API but i don't think that its
the end of the world if its not stable. primary purpose of this (imo)
is to promote consolidation and harmony amongst myfaces subprojects.
For some customers (who write certain paychecks :) ), unstable
public APIs *are* the end of the world, in that changed APIs
mean they can't upgrade.
> Also, I don't think build dependencies belong in here, at least
> not in terms of a packaged JAR. Whether they live in
> a "commons" in terms of SVN locations is fine.
not sure what this refers to. please explain.
Someone (forget who) was suggesting that the faces Maven
plugin (currently in Trinidad) should be part of Commons.
Obviously, a Maven plugin lives in its own JAR. I'm OK
with having shared build tools in a common SVN tree,
just so it's clearer for someone working on the project.
Make sense?
-- Adam
