I agree that Shale is not supposed to be for components. The validation stuff in Shale came along before Tomahawk. I have a feeling that David might have donated it to MyFaces had that not been the case.
Perhaps we could make the pitch to the rest of the Shale team about moving the validators to Toamahawk? Regardless, if those validators exist in Shale its my position that we shouldn't duplicate them. In fact, they already exist in commons and the Shale effort was just an extension of that. Its not hard to download another jar and use those validators. In the future I don't see Shale developing many more validators or components so I don't think it will continue to be a problem. Sean On 1/5/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In fact, > > I'd not deny a component coming in even if it is a little duplicate to > what shale has to offer. Shale is not supposed to be a full-blown > component library, that's what we are here for I'd say. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 1/5/06, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually my reference to the JSF Client Validators is asp.net's validators, > > I've implemented almost all of the client validators in asp.net for JSF. I > > will also check the Struts Shale project soon. I am currently busy with the > > stuff that is needed to integrate the components with myFaces and other > > legal issues like ICLA. > > > > Regards, > > > > Cagatay, > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
