we can do that. I'd also like to see this (sub)project stays alive, at Apache ;-)
I am not sure, if we need the infra@ guys for the mv. -M On Dec 6, 2007 3:54 PM, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Their is a feature in the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework that reads > the implementation's configuration, i.e. faces.xml, when setting up the > environment. This feature is valuable when testing against different > implementations, i.e. RI 1.1. In tomahawk 1.1.x, I hard coded some of > the configuration to enable some of the component testing. This hard > coding fails when testing against the RI. At one time I did modify the > test to use the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework to run the tests > against the RI, but I never committed the works because I did not want > to introduce a SNAPSHOT dependency. Move the test-framework into > MyFaces and I will commit the work. > > I request that test-framework be moved into MyFace. > > Paul Spencer > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
