Yes, we need to be careful about what goes in. And we should agree on
some rules here. Is lazy consensus enough? Or should every addition
require an official vote (on a regarding jira issue)?
Mike, the original intention of the jsf commons project was a
collection of useful jsf stuff (helpers and utilities) that is
convenient for component and application (and jsf implementation)
developers. This includes renderkit (html) specific stuff. There is no
harm in html specific stuff as long as it is really useful for many
people and it is located in a clearly separated java package.
Having common (renderkit independent) "components" was not the primary
goal AFAIR. I'd rather see these in another new project: something
like "MyFaces Base Components"
WDYT?
--Manfred
On 10/27/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we're starting to confuse the focus here.
>
> There's a difference between common components that can be used with
> any JSF project, and common programming utilities, many of which may
> be renderkit (like html) specific.
>
> I'm ok with common programming utilities being in this project, but
> we're going to need to be careful regarding what we put into it. But
> we do need to be careful about what goes in it.
>
> On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
> > issues/prerequisites:
> >
> > 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> > by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> > classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> > them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
> >
> > 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> > seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> > good reasons to do this.
> > So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> > "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> > "myfaces-commons-impl".
> >
> > BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
> > like this one:
> > public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
> > FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
> > NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
> > facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
> > navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null, outcome);
> > }
> >
> > Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
> > good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
> > customer project... ;-)
> >
> >
> > -Manfred
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> > >
> > > The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> > > to a component.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> > > from another of our modules)
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > > Mario
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
