>>>The structure is fine as it is.
+1 and Option 3 :)

2010/1/12 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>

> 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.
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
>


-- 
Gurkan Erdogdu
http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com

Reply via email to