On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> also, the sandbox renderer approach sounds good so far. > However, you should ensure we don't break a lot of things > > -Matthias > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Simon Lessard > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, > >> > >> Yes I think Adam made a wiki for UIXNode conversion during the time of > >> incubation, I'll have to look for the link. > >> > >> As for JSF 2.0 adoption, I would say 2 years after the specification > release > >> which is... not so soon. Implementation will start before that though > and I > >> think it's what important for our side. So personally I would say clean > up > >> the code... a lot as not only UIXNode need it, but wait for JSF 2.0 so > that > > > > +1 on an earlier clean-up than to wait on JSF 2 to do the clean-up. > > > >> our cleaning reflect JSF 2.0 changes, but working in a 1.2 environment. > I > >> gully agree about 1.0 trunk, I have no motivation at all about it. > > > > yes. And with the advent of Trinidad2/JSF2 we also should send Trinidad > 1.2 > > to maintaining stage (sure some bug fixes don't hurt) > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> ~ Simon > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Andrew Robinson > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > However, as Matthias pointed out, JSF 2.0 standardize Trinidad's > >>> > principal > >>> > core features namely PPR and Resource handling and hopefully skinning > >>> > too. > >>> > Under such circumstances, I feel that we should wait for 2.0 to be > >>> > cemented > >>> > before going through a massive refactoring of some of the old and > >>> > twisted > >>> > code parts so that the refactored design is fully compatible with > 1.2, > >>> > but > >>> > using 2.0 concept to make the upgrade to 2.0 easier imho. > >>> > >>> Although those are really good concerns, I wonder how long it will > >>> take JSF2 to be adopted. It seems like many are even reluctant to > >>> adopt 1.2. So I wonder if it is still worth it for us to make an > >>> effort to at least clean up the 1.2 trunk? (I did not mention the 1.0 > >>> trunk as I seem to have lost my desire to maintain the JSF 1.1 code > >>> myself) > >>> > >>> I guess it comes down to time and desire. I worry about the UIXNode > >>> conversion as I don't yet fully understand that code enough to feel > >>> comfortable porting it without missing things. I guess I could create > >>> sandbox renderers for the components, then if they look complete, we > >>> could promote them & replace the UIXNode ones at that time. Is there a > >>> WIKI page that I missed that talks about how to convert these guys or > >>> about any of the UIXNode architecture? > >>> > >>> -Andrew > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > I would like to see two things about trinidad code (it is just my personal opinion about it): 1. Modify trinidad maven-faces-plugin so it adds myfaces-builder-plugin annotations when rendering code, so a generated myfaces-metadata.xml exists and make trinidad sandbox components more easier (using myfaces-builder-plugin instead). This change does not affect any functionality. Actually create custom trinidad components it is not a very easy task. 2. Separate skin related api so other myfaces projects can use it (for example tomahawk but this api needs some cleanup first). regards Leonardo Uribe
