I personally see tomahawk as an add-on component library that should
work with existing render-kits of other projects. With this said I
would vote that this would depend on myfaces-commons and not provide
any commons functionality, but that is my opinion.

-Andrew

On 10/27/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should this also include myfaces-commons?  I would expect Tomahawk to
> build on myfaces-commons especially now that we're talking about
> putting the common programming utilities into it, but I don't know if
> that means it should be part of the Tomahawk super-project.
>
> Second, JSF 1.1 requires jdk 1.4. (Maybe even 1.3, but I don't think
> anyone is using 1.3 with JSF).   Currently, there's only one item in
> Tomahawk that requires 1.5, and I'm about to revert it due to the 1.5
> incompatibility (and due to the fact it should never have been put
> into tomahawk the way it was in the first place).
>
> The primary reason I'm still using JSF 1.1 is that Java 1.5 is only
> now being phased in at my JSF client site.
>
> On 10/27/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would like to propose the following refactoring of the tomahawk
> > project under myfaces
> >
> > Current structure under tomahawk:
> > trunk/
> >   assembly (for building releases)
> >   core (tomahawk "core")
> >   examples (examples for the core project)
> >   sandbox (sandbox)
> >   sandbox15 (Sandbox with JDK 1.5 dependency)
> >   pom.xml
> >
> > Proposed change:
> >
> > trunk/
> >   core/
> >     assembly/
> >     tomahawk-build/
> >     tomahawk-api/
> >     tomahawk-impl/
> >     tomahawk-facelets/
> >   sandbox/
> >     assembly/
> >     sandbox-build/
> >     sandbox-api/
> >     sandbox-impl/
> >     sandbox-facelets/
> > branches/
> >   jsf-1.2/
> >     current/
> >       core/
> >         assembly/
> >         tomahawk-build/
> >         tomahawk-api/
> >         tomahawk-impl/
> >         tomahawk-facelets/
> >       sandbox/
> >         assembly/
> >         sandbox-build/
> >         sandbox-api/
> >         sandbox-impl/
> >         sandbox-facelets/
> >     (Releases here - ex 1.1.7)
> >   jdk-1.5/
> >     current/
> >       core/
> >         assembly/
> >         tomahawk-build/
> >         tomahawk-api/
> >         tomahawk-impl/
> >         tomahawk-facelets/
> >       sandbox/
> >         assembly/
> >         sandbox-build/
> >         sandbox-api/
> >         sandbox-impl/
> >         sandbox-facelets/
> >     (Releases here - ex 1.1.7)
> >   jsf-2.0 (future)/
> >
> > Along with this change will be migration to use the maven faces
> > plug-in for component generation. This will facilitate the inclusion
> > of facelets support. The plug-in would be based on the current myfaces
> > generator that is being used for myfaces core 1.2 and re-factored to
> > use 1.1. The jsf-1.2 branch can use the existing files, with possible
> > modifications as required.
> >
> > The sandbox15 becomes a separate release of the sandbox with 1.5 code
> > added. I see this being much more flexible than a separate jar. This
> > way tomahawk core classes can be made to support JDK 1.5 as desired.
> >
> > Question: is the branch for JDK 1.5 on JSF 1.1 required, or should the
> > JSF 1.2 branch be used for this code instead?
> >
> > I don't have a whole lot of time, but I am willing to put some work in
> > to help split the projects out and setup the maven plug-in part. Other
> > help would be needed.
> >
> > If people agree, I see this as a phased approach:
> >
> > 1) Create a new branch under tomahawk to house the work in progress.
> > 2) Modify the myfaces code in the maven-faces-plugin to support JSF
> > 1.1 (configuration support is already there, the plug-in just doesn't
> > use it)
> > 3) Setup the tomahawk-build core project xml files
> > 4) create an SVN tag as the branch point
> > 5) starting moving core over
> > 6) repeat 3-5 for the sandbox
> > 7) repeat 3-5 for a jsf-1.2 branch and optionally the jdk-1.5 branch.
> >
> > 8) (in parallel to 1-7): update the framework for nightly builds, and
> > any changes to the "system" that would need to be made for these
> > changes.
> >
> > Opinions?
> > -Andrew
> >
>

Reply via email to