Hi, Well, the first question to ask is: what do we want to release in the near future?
I think the next Tomahawk release should be 1.1.7, containing bugfixes and a few promotions from sandbox. It should not contain radical refactoring of the build process. In the longer term, I believe we are planning to move a bunch of existing code out of Tomahawk into commons. So then Tomahawk will not be a drop-in replacement for the old one, as pages referencing t:foo will then have to reference some new commons tag that provides the equivalent functionality. There is also stuff in tomahawk that needs cleaning up. For example, IMO the inputCalendar should be two tags; one for popup and one not. Having them as a single component is a major headache. And there are lots of other cleanups that could be made, eg removing bad ideas (I think forceId is one thing that should go completely, replaced by a more generic solution). So if we are going to make a non-backwards-compatible release of Tomahawk code, then it seems to me that we should look at whether what is left would cause confusion by inheriting the tomahawk name. If we only factor out 10% into commons, and only make significant changes to another 10% of tags, then yes the existing name might be reasonable. But if major changes are to be made, then we must change the taglib namespace and java package-name otherwise the new code and the old code cannot live together in the same app. And the easiest solution to that would be to call this significantly new lib something else - eg "commons ui widgets". I *do* like much of what is currently in tomahawk, and am not suggesting throwing the code away. But if a major refactor is applied, then we probably need a new name. And re the code-generation stuff: personally I don't like it at all. Agreed it does suck less than the old approach, but it still is ugly. I'm hoping to find time to experiment with some alternatives. Now of course I'm not suggesting that everything stop until I deliver a wonderful new solution :-). However given that 1.1.7 is the short-term goal, and 1.2 is questionable it doesn't seem a good time to be doing all that work on a Tomahawk 1.2 build system. Regards, Simon ---- Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Simon, > > is your conclusion then that Tomahawk should die? > > To be honest, my perception is quite different from this. > > We have a large user-base, and I'm certainly all for keeping Tomahawk > up-to-date as much as possible and still improve it where we can. > > And, I generally don't see the use of having 10 different ways of > maintaining components in MyFaces, the first step to a more > maintainable Tomahawk-component-set must therefore be to change the > build-system to the one used by MyFaces 1.2, Trinidad and (hopefully > also) the new commons library! > > regards, > > Martin > > On 1/30/08, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As being the guy who has created the tomahawk 1.2 branch and spent a lot of > > time with it, upgrading to 1.2 is not an easy task because as Simon > > mentioned the code is old and crusty. > > > > I agree that non rendering stuff should be moved to commons, I've some > > candidates on my own from sandbox and tomahawk for commons. > > > > For autogeneration, one must generate all the component metadata, this all > > has been discussed on ML by the way. > > > > I still think tomahawk 1.2 makes sense. > > > > Cagatay > > > > On Jan 30, 2008 11:02 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Jan 30, 2008 9:53 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I see Leonard is currently doing a lot of work on something called > > > "tomahawk 1.2", which surprised me a little. > > > > > > > > I have checked the mail archives, and see some discussions happening > > > around june 2007 regarding having a version of tomahawk specifically for > > > JSF1.2. > > > > > > I saw the activity on tomahawk 1.2 as well, and was also a little > > > surprised, since nothing regarding that has been discussed here on the > > > ML. > > > > > > > > > > > But since then, we have started "apache commons". I think therefore that > > > rather than have a tomahawk 1.2, it would be better to split tomahawk up > > > into pieces that live in "commons" modules, or at least extract all the > > bits > > > we can, then call the remaining bits something other than "tomahawk". > > > > > > +1 that sounds good; > > > > > > commons can be used in a wider range (like in tobago, trinidad, ice-faces, > > > ...) > > > the additional UI comps (like nice (dojo-based) tables etc can become > > > Tomahawk) > > > also worth to check for promotions of the sandbox (was recently > > > already discussed), like > > > the PPR stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > Tomahawk code is really rather old and crusty and I don't see a lot of > > > point moving it as-is to JSF1.2. > > > > > > > > Getting a release of tomahawk 1.1.7 out, however, would be a very good > > > idea. > > > > > > +1 here as well > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > further stuff: > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
