Ah, okay. Thanks for the info. That definitely saves some time :-). On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> No, Facelets license was changed to ASL specifically to make integration > possible so we're actually integrating Facelets code directly but with > different package names and/or class names, hence why I just added some info > in NOTICE.txt specifying such usage as suggested on legal-discuss when I > raised the question. > > ~ Simon > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Kito Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hey Simon, >> >> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch? >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> We're reaching the point of integrating Facelets to the core 2.0 branch >>> and we need to determine what kind of package structure we'll be using.My >>> first thought would be to concentrate core Facelets classes in >>> org.apache.myfaces.application.facelets and place the tag classes in >>> org.apache.myfaces.taglib.facelets.core/html/* and move jsp specific tags >>> from org.apache.myfaces.taglib.* to org.apache.myfaces.taglib.jsp.* >>> >>> Is there any better suggestion for this? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> ~ Simon >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action >> http://twitter.com/kito99 >> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring >> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info >> +1 203-404-4848 x3 >> >> >> >> > -- Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://twitter.com/kito99 http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info +1 203-404-4848 x3
