I have been watching this thread and I think this is an important topic. However I want to make the following comments. 1. Since the JSF specification has no input on AJAX and to me there are several viable AJAX frameworks, none of which really play well together, I don't buy the argument that Trinidad's AJAX implementation has to be separate from the Trinidad framework. 2. It is clear that Trinidad's approach is conceptually different than AJAX4JSF approach for JSF. Maybe this is good, both should learn from each other but keep true to their own concepts. Underlying Trinidad is an Oracle approach and underlying AJAX4JSF is a JBOSS/Exadel approach. The reality is that while both are open source each is controlled by a company with a particular vision or technology ownership. Until the JSF community decides on how AJAX and JSF *should* work together I don't see any reason for Trinidad to accomodate a different approach over the one it is using. 3. The argument that we are going to want to mix JSF component suites (plus maybe build a few custom ones) is desirable but at this early stage in JSF often impractical. I wonder why Andrew, who seems to be JBOSS centric, feels the need to be using Trinidad components. I suspect it is because overall Trinidad has the most comprehensive set of components available and he is sprinkling in one or two other components from various other suites for special needs. My recommendation to most JSF developers is to stick with a single suite because mixing and matching suites that have significant AJAX capabilities is difficult if not impossible. The best component suite is the one in which you don't need HTML supplementation or have to write custom components. 4. I have voiced this before but I am concerned with Trinidad being a subproject of MyFaces (not Apache) because I can never figure out if MyFaces is about a reference implementation, components (Tomahawk, Tobago, Trinidad none of which really play well together), or add-on features (Orchestra). Then we have Sun over there in java.net doing their own thing with Dynafaces etc. Trinidad should be project level. 5. There are too many JSF component suites that are poor quality and few that are of sufficient quality to do production level work. I am more interested in a stable component suite then in having all kinds of side feature discussions. Moving this feature outside of the "core" trunk is the right thing to do. We can make it an add-on feature and in the process of making it an add on the discussion should be more at the level of exposing the necessary "core" public API's required to construct the add-on. Eventually the community will look at these add-on features and determine which ones should become core. 6. I would like to see Trinidad come out with more information for those who feel the need to write their own custom components when using the Trinidad framework. Steve
<<winmail.dat>>
This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
