Martin Marinschek schrieb:
I can certainly live with dojo components being in an optional,
plug-in subproject of Tomahawk - they should then however use Tomahawk
infrastructure, the generator-environment and work together with its
components.
As I said moving over the generator is basically a
Andrew Robinson schrieb:
I can see the point of that argument, but worry that putting heavy 3rd
party JS libraries into Tomahawk will steer people away from using it.
IMO, Dojo based components should either be (1) in a new MyFaces top
project, or in (2) a subproject of Tomahawk (i.e.
myfaces-tom
I can certainly live with dojo components being in an optional,
plug-in subproject of Tomahawk - they should then however use Tomahawk
infrastructure, the generator-environment and work together with its
components.
regards,
Martin
On 7/10/08, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can s
I can see the point of that argument, but worry that putting heavy 3rd
party JS libraries into Tomahawk will steer people away from using it.
IMO, Dojo based components should either be (1) in a new MyFaces top
project, or in (2) a subproject of Tomahawk (i.e.
myfaces-tomahawk-dojo).
#2 has its ad
Hi Mario,
I do not fancy YACL (yet another component library). Really not. There
is some cool stuff in Werner's proposal, and I think it might be nice
if it is carefully integrated into tomahawk without breaking the other
stuff that is there. I do strongly think that we cannot afford the
community
Hi!
Werner Punz schrieb:
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
In any case, I remain -1 to add a new component library - I am sorry.
Ok I am going to postpone this discussion until I can showcase something
then we can start it over...
Hmm ... was Martin's -1 a veto or did he just express his opinion.
M
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
Hi Werner,
As for hosting another option would be to host
the project outside of apache until we
have moved everything over and then move it into the sandbox.
I am somewhat not really feeling well to drop it into the sandbox
as long as we dont have moved the old comp
Hi Werner,
>> As for hosting another option would be to host
>> the project outside of apache until we
>> have moved everything over and then move it into the sandbox.
>> I am somewhat not really feeling well to drop it into the sandbox
>> as long as we dont have moved the old components over
>>
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 21:52 +0200, Werner Punz wrote:
> Martin Marinschek schrieb:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am -1 for adding another sub-project.
> >
> > Put this into the sandbox - and use the new code-generator, please,
> > and upgrade the existing dojo components to the 1.1 version -
> > everyth
]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:32 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Dojo discussion - opensourcing the jsf dojo components project
Hi!
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
+1 for own subproject.
Any further influence with tomah
Hi,
2008/7/8 Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> +1 to subproject
>
> -1 to sandbox.
>
> IMO, Dojo should be separated from Tomahawk
+1 for that, but if i understand Werner correct his current
implementation depends on tomahawk.
Regards,
Volker
> and the sandbox is part of
> Tomahawk, n
+1 to subproject
-1 to sandbox.
IMO, Dojo should be separated from Tomahawk and the sandbox is part of
Tomahawk, not a play ground for all the different MyFaces libraries.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Ernst Fastl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Werner,
>
> I think it would be good to have it
>
>
> Come to the first annual JSFOne Conference this September! Visit
> http://www.jsfone.com for details.
>
>
>
> From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:32 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: Dojo discussion - opensou
details.
From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:32 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Dojo discussion - opensourcing the jsf dojo components project
Hi!
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subpro
+1 for a subproject as well.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >>
> >> Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
> >> sandbox or own s
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>>
>> Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
>> sandbox or own subproject?
>
> +1 for own subproject.
+1 as well
-M
>
> Any further influence with tomahawk/sandbox needs to be avoide
It doesn't make much sense to rewrite it to work as part of the
sandbox project, only to pull it back out as a separate project again,
especially since it's already stand-alone.
+1 as a separate project.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>>
>> Ok th
Hi!
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
+1 for own subproject.
Any further influence with tomahawk/sandbox needs to be avoided.
These two projects are still waiting for a overhaul themself.
Ciao,
Mario
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>
>> On [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russel (SUN)
>> agreed that a software grant is fine.
>>
>> Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
> sandbox or own subproject?
>
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
On [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russel (SUN)
agreed that a software grant is fine.
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
Both options are fine for me, but with the sandbox I have to clearly
make comments in the
On [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russel (SUN)
agreed that a software grant is fine.
-M
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it is fine here. My main reason for the incubator list was
> just b/c this project
> was completely developed offline.
Hi,
I think it is fine here. My main reason for the incubator list was
just b/c this project
was completely developed offline. So, it is (to me) a new project. That's all.
For me, a software grant would be pretty much enough.
-M
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi Simon,
On 7/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's great that people are thinking carefully about the right way to
> handle this new code. But after some pondering, I'm happy for it to go
> directly into a sandbox here and not through the incubator.
I would say so as well -
It's great that people are thinking carefully about the right way to
handle this new code. But after some pondering, I'm happy for it to go
directly into a sandbox here and not through the incubator.
My reasons are:
Incubation is necessary when a brand-new project is created, in order to
be s
Ok I dropped a mail in the incubator mailing list lets wait
for the answers.
Werner
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
Yes, definitely incubator should be kept in the loop. But I feel a
Grant should be enough, if it is part of the sandbox.
regards,
Martin
On 7/7/08, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROT
Yes, definitely incubator should be kept in the loop. But I feel a
Grant should be enough, if it is part of the sandbox.
regards,
Martin
On 7/7/08, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well best probably is to ask there, but I dont think there should
>> be too much of a problem of g
> Well best probably is to ask there, but I dont think there should
> be too much of a problem of getting it in directly without
> having to go through the incubator, due to the nature of the code being
> developed 100% by me.
I am fine with that. But I just want to make sure everything is fine
an
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
Not sure if the development is outside of the apache community
the I wrote basically every single line of code so far myself.
but not under an Apache umbrella.
(Except for dojo)
The extensive table component which is pending, is a shared work
with all people invo
> Not sure if the development is outside of the apache community
> the I wrote basically every single line of code so far myself.
but not under an Apache umbrella.
> (Except for dojo)
>
> The extensive table component which is pending, is a shared work
> with all people involved having committer
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
So my question is, are we going to host it inside of myfaces as its own
subproject or as part of the sandbox or maybe I can move the codebase over
to its own project outside of apache (jsfcomp for instance might be a
perfect place until the entire complib is matured e
> So my question is, are we going to host it inside of myfaces as its own
> subproject or as part of the sandbox or maybe I can move the codebase over
> to its own project outside of apache (jsfcomp for instance might be a
> perfect place until the entire complib is matured enough)
since it was de
No decision yet...
I would call it extensions, or something alike not really dojo
maybe we add other frameworks as well in the long run.
Werner
Ernst Fastl schrieb:
If moving to sandbox complicates the process a lot then maybe it would
be the better idea to, as you initially suggested, start
If moving to sandbox complicates the process a lot then maybe it would
be the better idea to, as you initially suggested, start a "tomahawk-dojo"
migrate and move the dojo stuff in the sandbox to there and get rid of dojo
in the sandbox. Has there already been a decision if we want to have
the dojo
Ernst Fastl schrieb:
Hi Werner,
I think it would be good to have it in MyFaces either as a subproject
or for starter
if anyone feels it might not be mature enough yet in the sandbox. It
would be great
to have it around in tomahawk seeing we could really use some "new fancy"
Web 2.0 components to
Hi Werner,
I think it would be good to have it in MyFaces either as a subproject
or for starter
if anyone feels it might not be mature enough yet in the sandbox. It
would be great
to have it around in tomahawk seeing we could really use some "new fancy"
Web 2.0 components to make tomahawk again mo
Hello everyone
as some know, I have been working semi silently the last months in my
opensource time on a jsf dojo layer which is rather extensive, it is a
thin layer on top of dojo currently encapsulating around 23-25 of the
existing dijit components
(around 98% of the dijit components)
I a
36 matches
Mail list logo
