On 10/31/07, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called > > > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components" > > > > I suggest that I prepare an initial setup, and check it in, so that > > there is some concrete stuff we can talk about. > > Ok? > I still don't get why we should increase the number of modules here. > Two artifacts means two jars, no?
Yes, sure. And then, what is a Component? I think we agreed that we just want to > add render-less components, no? Else it has to go into tomahawk. The > Commons should not be just a "component-library without (the dreaded) > shared". > > Is a UrlNavigationHandler a Component then or a util? It has no > component yet, but what if it has one in the future? > I know, we then can simply just add this component to the Components, > but why should we split the stuff? > > In this case I'd have a org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler > package where everything lives in. > > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler (the api) > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.impl > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.component > etc > > Also renderkit independent "components" need a taglib in the META-INF dir. This is the main difference between a "component" and a goodie class a user can decide to use or not. --Manfred
