On Nov 29, 2007 10:07 AM, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh no! Seems like we are going round in circles... :-( > > WHAT is the FOCUS of a jsfcommons project?! > > Do we really want component like stuff like converters and validators there?
hu? yes! > Didn't we discuss this already? > I thought we agreed on not starting yet another jsf component lib. converters/validators are renderKit independent, so why not having them there ? > What is wrong with having convenient converters and validators in > tomahawk? Where they are right now! I am fine with having them in tomahawk as a convenient solution (technically the TLD point to the TAG, defined in the lib) > Is it because tomahawk has some flaws and maybe have sideeffects on > other component libs? If yes, we have to FIX tomahawk and not turn > around and start a new (better?) project. > > My original idea of a jsfcommons project is/was: > - convenient utils, helpers and base classes for component developers > - convenient backing(!) bean utils and helpers for jsf application > developers (ie "users") that would be more a utlis; > > What jsfcommons should NOT be: > - a convenient haven for simple components or component like stuff, > that is put there for "strategic" reasons > > A need for a "jsfcommons-faces-config.xml" is a definite sign, that we > would start off in the wrong direction. We would start yet another jsf > component lib. That is the main reason I warned of having a > faces-config.xml in jsfcommons in former discussed. It was not only > for technical reasons. > > --Manfred > > > > > On 11/29/07, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > I don't think a separation between api and impl jars is useful. > > > > > I second that. For the same reasons. It makes things unnecessary > > complicated .... > > To ensure api stability community review should be enough - and then > > there is a maven plugin for that, no? > > > > BTW: I thought we agreed on a structure like > > myfaces-jsfcommons-converters > > myfaces-jsfcommons-validators > > ... > > > > Also overly complex, but something I can learn to understand .... > > > > Lets reiterate: I prefer to start with a simple jsfcommons project where > > we have no faces-config.xml (at least not in a place where JSF loads it > > automatically). > > Providing a jsfcommons-faces-config.xml which the user has to add to the > > configuration will avoid any side-effect when dropping in our jsfcommons > > jar. It also allows to selectively active things as the users can change > > their own configuration as required. > > > > Regarding the sandbox: I'd like to suggest to use the tomahawk sandbox > > for myfaces land at all. Lets promote the tomahawk-sandbox one level > > higher - thats it. > > > > Ciao, > > Mario > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
