I am replying to several postings on the mailing list in the last time at once, so sorry if I puzzle someone.
With all this discussion on toplevel or sublevel or whatever level projects we should still try to get our infrastructure up-to-date first (I agree with Matthias and his former postings on this topic). In the last one and a half years, we have had (4) different homepages, we should finally try to get the dust cloud to settle down. For the meantime, I believe that all is quite good as it is right now, even with the components being part of MyFaces. The thing is that it is much easier to work on the components if they are at least part of the common source base of the framework, and this might be a reason why the components of MyFaces are indeed thriving as much as they do. As soon as we get to be a large bureaucratic body, we should stop, rethink our ways and move the components out to a subproject. regards, Martin On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:16:53 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:46:58 -0500, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally, I'm not convinced that Shale really should be part of the > > MyFaces project. If you look at JSF as a foundation for UI frameworks (and > > more sophisticated web frameworks in general), then hopefully we'll see it > > pop up in lots of different places (in my perfect world, even Tapestry > > would use JSF components). Placing all projects that use JSF under one > > umbrella may break over time as JSF grows. (For example, all Java projects > > are no longer part of Jakarta.) > > Good point. We definitely don't want to rush into something like > this. There are potential drawbacks as you pointed out. > > > Moreover, although Shale is based on JSF, it will hopefully be the next > > major revision of Struts. Struts has its own very strong brand, and it > > seems strange to pull Shale away from that. > > That is a big question mark but I happen to agree with you (and Craig) > on the desirability of that outcome. Moving Shale to a new project > does pretty much give up on that idea so I can see that as a drawback. > > sean >
