+1 makes perfect sense, Bruno
2009/1/19 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > +1 > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2009/1/19 Simon Lessard <[email protected]> > > I'm +1 with that. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Werner Punz <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone, I just started with the entire ajax layer for MyFaces >>> 2.0. >>> As it seems, we probably can get away with porting the Trinidad Ajax >>> layer over. While the code is rather big, it probably is better than writing >>> another transport layer from scratch. We probably have 1/3rd of code which >>> we probably could drop but I would keep it in the internal APIs. >>> >>> All I would do is to port the trinidad transport layer classes over (The >>> ajax queue and the XHR transport layer) and push it into the >>> org.apache.myfaces namespace. >>> >>> I think this is the sanest solution to deal with it. The trinidad code is >>> although a little bit verbose, proven and mostly bug free in this area, and >>> reusing the trinidad code also would make porting Trinidad over to the new >>> transports probably a tad easier (although I doubt it because all this is >>> mostly implementation APIs and the public APIs are rather smallish) >>> >>> >> > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
