On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I have coded the javax.faces.bean.ViewScoped handling and it turned out that >> I do not need anything OWB special. So this i a completely CDI independent >>portable implementation, and as such I'm in favour to _not_ add it to >>openwebbeans-jsf but to a new 'extensions' module.
you said "openwebbeans-jsf", but the actual name is webbeans-jsf; I agree with your implicit message, that it should not be named "webbeans-xyz"; What is your guys opinion on renaming the modules? Option 1: openwebbeans-xzy (maybe too long for some folks) Option 2: owb-xzy Option 3: Do nothing :-) -Matthias > > +1 > >> >> This also has the side effect that we now for the first time really use JSF2 >> functionality, and thus it would not be possible to use OWB with JSF-1 >> applications anymore! But since I consider OWB + JSF-1 a very important >> scenario (for making migration easier and due to the fact that there is >> still no JSF-2 component taglib on the market!), I don't like to add this to >> openwebbeans-jsf. >> > > +1 > >> This opens the general question on how we cope with JSF-1 vs JSF-2 in the >> future. > > If these extras aren't too big, maybe going parallel is fine, for a > while. I guess I need to think > about that a bit more :-) > >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > 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
