On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually I meant the artifactId in pom.xml ;) > > <artifactId>openwebbeans-jsf</artifactId> > > The structure is fine as it is. It's solely about our strategy to support > both JSF-1 and JFS-2 apps.
yeah, I got that. However not sure I really like the structure as it is named right now :-) > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> >> Subject: renaming of the modules (was: Re: fully going JSF2?) >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 11:07 AM >> 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 >> > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
