> I thought more about > /commons/ > -/myfaces-commons-utils > /newprojectname/ > -/myfaces-newprojectname-validators > -/myfaces-newprojectname-converters > -/myfaces-newprojectname-ppr > -/myfaces-newprojectname-grids > -/myfaces-newprojectname-layouters
what about "creme" as the new name ? :-) > > We really should think about that as the long awaited fusion of the best > possible techniques at myfaces - proven to work together nicely. > > > Hrm.. not sure if a *common* PPR is really fine. > > Trinidad, for instance doesn't need anything from dojo, so we have our > > very simple and lightweight "ajax"-API. > > > Thats the nice thing about modularizing tomahaw/trinidad. If one would > like to use our ppr, adding our jar would be enough, and ... > > > So, adding dojo, as a common mechanism to Trinidad, is not really > > something, I am thrilled about. > > > ... it is not put in stone that the ppr project above is based on the > tomahawk-sandbox-ppr. BTW: If a component itself is ajaxable without any > additional ppr lib it should work too. > > > but, we can bring this up in the future, current goal is, to just > > kickoff the base > > of commons. > > > As the discussion has come so far - I think - the least common > denominator is just the myfaces-commons-utils project and even there it > seems we are not able to work out if we should split it into -api/-impl. > Sorry to have to say that. > > Ciao, > Mario > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
