On 12/9/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's say that Shale and MyFaces wanted to share some underpinning code, > meaning that neither will run without it. Just for the sake of argument, > let's pretend it's something like Commons Resources, but it lives at > MyFaces. Now someone who has been using the JSF RI decides they want to use > Shale as well. It seems pretty odd to me to have to tell them that they > *have to* go get some extra component from another project that is largely > viewed as a competing JSF implementation to the one they're already using.
MyFaces is both a "completing" JSF implementation (Myfaces impl) and also one of the largest 3rd-party add-ons of extra functionality (components, validators) for all JSF implementations (Tomahawk/Sandbox). So it's not quite that unusual. After all, people come to the Struts project to get Shale or Tiles, even though they're not using the "competing" Struts framework. The shared code in tomahawk is primarily for building components better and easier. It certainly makes the most sense to keep this code with Tomahawk since it's an integral part of all tomahawk components. There's probably a certain class of sharable code that's not closely tied to anything else (end-user utility functions) and could be put into any project: shale, tomahawk, or a new jsf-commons. The shale base backing bean class is a good example of this. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
