On Jul 21, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > hi mark, > > nobody said that it would harm (at least i'm not aware of technical issues). > (maybe some people would use it even though they shouldn't - e.g. because > they have an alternative which should be used in their application/s.) > furthermore, i agree with martin - most projects are using (or will use) one > of the mentioned frameworks. > > the questions are: > who would use this feature? Anyone who needed to store information on a per window basis and could live without managed bean support. We already had several teams trying to build this on their own. The finer-grained scopes, such as page flow scope, should be built on top of this directly. As teams have been dealing with fail-over issues, they are finding that they want this.
> - new projects? i don't think so. If they had the above issues, sure. > - existing projects? would they upgrade to a new version of trinidad just > for using this feature? I don't understand. If the bar for new features is that they must be the driving force for customers to upgrade, very few features would be added to any project. -- Blake Sullivan > > maybe it's the right time to discuss our plans for the future of trinidad. > (at least if we should use the maven shade plugin for modularizing trinidad. > in such a case we could also provide an all-in-one package via special > modules. so users won't see any difference, if they prefer the existing > monolithic package.) > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > 2010/7/21 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Hmm difficult topic. > > Please allow me a few questions: > > a.) Trinidad components would still work with using either Orchestra > conversations or CODI? > b) You are not relying on other components or the users using your > conversation > stuff if they don't like? > c) if the user doesn't make use of this feature, it will not pollute the > viewRoot or cause heavy performance hits? > > If all this is ok, then there is imo no argument against adding it to > Trinidad. > This doesn't mean I like it either, but it doesn't hurt at least ;) > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > >From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > >To: MyFaces Development <[email protected]> > >Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 10:16:23 AM > >Subject: Re: [Trinidad][api]TRINIDAD-1857 Add a Map associated with each > >window > > > >or tab that the user is interacting with > > > >i agree with martin. > > > > > >regards, > >gerhard > > > >http://www.irian.at > > > >Your JSF powerhouse - > >JSF Consulting, Development and > >Courses in English and German > > > >Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > > > > >2010/7/21 Martin Marinschek <[email protected]> > > > >Hi Matthias, > >> > >> > >>> Not everybody is using CDI and/or Spring. > >> > >>well, in the real world and a little while in the future, there is not > >>many people who will not have one of these frameworks in their > >>applications. > >> > >> > >>> I think, on long term we may want one clean and independent API, where > >>> all these projects offer an implementation for a window/event system: > >>> -CODI > >>> -Orchestra > >>> -Trinidad > >>> -etc > >>> > >>> However, right now, Trinidad has the base already and adding a new > >>> toolset to the belt feels kinda wrong. > >>> Again +1 on this to be inside of Trinidad. > >>> > >>> This does not mean that we could work on a better future version of a > >>> more unified API, for this. Right? > >> > >>yes, this is what we could and what we should. Why not take this > >>addition as a reason to do this right now? If we don´t take such > >>additions as a reason to do this, what else will be our reason? > >> > >>best regards, > >> > >>Martin > >> > >>-- > >> > >> > >>http://www.irian.at > >> > >>Your JSF powerhouse - > >>JSF Consulting, Development and > >>Courses in English and German > >> > >>Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >> > > > > > >
