to bring light to this discussion;
On Oct 24, 2007 8:15 AM, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For me, a merger makes sense.
The question is who will do the work, though.
yup! That's right.
Some reflections on the modules:
- ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense
here (the notion of subflows which
I think the Orchestra VC is pretty solid, right now; I personally like it more.
What potential makes sense (as an addition) is the Dialog mgr
+ the XML-W3C-thing (forgot the name :-) )
- Clay: Yes, obviously Facelets has won the race - we should all
concentrate our efforts there, so that the JSF community can profit as
a whole (and is not splitted)
yes, no need for that, sorry to say.
- Tiger-extensions: again, this would make sense in Orchestra, as an
alternative way of configuring Orchestras beans (and also other beans,
of course) to using Spring
for the discussion I have the understanding, that Tiger will be used as
JSF2 @nnotation solution. We should take that bit for the next impl... :)
- test-framework: we've long used it in MyFaces, but for recent tests
both Matthias and me have used EasyMock, it is somewhat easier to
define changing interface behaviour with EasyMock than with static
mock-classes. Still, this is valuable, and should be a separate module
in the merger.
- validators - no, probably not really
please no
- s:token: I'd love to have a generic way of preventing duplicated
posts. But I guess this is something that Orchestra could eventually
handle?
apart from that, I don't know much more about Shale - sorry.
other bits, that were discussed were:
-AppController
looks like nobody is really interested in this
-Remoting
sounds like a nice enhancement; and may be JSF 2.0 (as mentioned by
some folks here)
-Spring-Integration
no need for that
(Did I miss a module?)
It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
I am +1 on that.
I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
-Dialog
-Remoting
-Test
-Tiger
-ViewController
What happens to the rest?
I don't know;
Will they be maintained ?
I don't know;
regards,
Martin
On 10/22/07, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, so what about having a 'myfaces dormant' project where each module gets
added where it seems there is no real maintainer.
This could be a place for abandoned sandbox stuff too.
I know, the word 'maintainer' is not well placed in the context of an apache
community, but in the end I think it would be fair to show to users that no
one is really working on an project.
Mario
-----Original Message-----
From: "Grant Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, Okt 22, 2007 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <[email protected]>To: "MyFaces
Development" <[email protected]>
Conceptually, I am in favor of a merge. I wouldn't wait for JSF 2.0 to do
it, though. +1.
On 10/22/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At least, 1
year, that is my guess.
So, I agree w/ Kito here
-M
On 10/22/07, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or more
away....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
-----Original Message-----
From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; MyFaces Development
Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Hi all,
I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting) should not
move,
but just stay in Shale.
Also let's see where templating and component development goes before
making
a decision about Clay.
So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it comes to JSF 2
all
Add-Ons move to MyFaces.
Bernhard
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag
von Craig
McClanahan
Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 01:48
An: MyFaces Development; Shale Developers List
Betreff: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
* Remoting
Unsure, as most of this can be done with PPR too.
+1 This is pretty useful and easy to use, and will affect JSF 2.0.
A secondary benefit is near-zero config for resource access,
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
