let me try to get the wiki page done tomorrow. (at least the starting point)
On Dec 3, 2007 8:48 PM, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To lessen confusion, would someone want to start a wiki page with a > summary of what the commons would look like. That way the emails > should be (hopefully) easier to read. Then this thread can be used to > refine and discuss the wiki contents. > > -Andrew > > > On Nov 30, 2007 12:34 AM, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > ---- Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > > > > >> I don't see any reason why we shoulnd't being able to provide a stable > > >> api even for shared. > > >> > > > > > > I have to strongly disagree here. > > > > > I know what all this means, but, this statement, and what Manfred wrote > > means, that MyFaces is not allowed to depend on jsfcommons and is not > > allowed to use all the nice utility methods in there. > > > > I still think it should be possible to provide a library with a stable > > api over time, new methods can be added without breaking backward > > compatibility. See commons-lang. > > IF JSF changes in a way that makes this no longer possible, we could > > create a new package structure for the new API. > > Something like org.apache.myfaces.jsfcommons -> > > org.apache.myfaces.jsfcommons2 etc. > > > > Dropping such a jar into the J2EE Container does not necessarily break > > anything. > > > > BTW: I think all this J2EE stuff with providing implementations is > > broken, at least, it shows a major caveat in Java where a library is not > > able to define on which other library-version it depends on. A shame > > that this has not been fixed for a long time ... Something like this is > > planned in Java 1.7 I think, no? > > > > > > In any case, I think having a subject-separated project structure in > > jsfcommons is better than the api/impl way. However, if we split > > tomahawk into pieces and providing a jsfcommons for just the utils thing > > I am fine too. Yep, maybe this is the way how tomahawk should evolve and > > it frees jsfcommons from the discussion if converters/validators should > > be put in there - the answer then is simply "NO, put it into > > tomahawk-converters". In the sense of "equality" we should find an all > > new name for this project which has nothing to do with commons, > > tomahawk, trinidad etc. > > > > Ciao, > > Mario > > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
