Also a FAQ was added recently answering to this question, but we should made the issue more visible as Sean points out,
Bruno On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:30:15 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree 100% with Martin on this one. > > On one of these threads Kito made a comment about people being > confused about the myfaces components and whether or not they require > myfaces. We should do our best to promote the fact that the > components are independent of the implementation. Improvements to our > documentation will help with that. > > There is a place holder "overview" page on the myfaces site where just > such documentation should go. I will add some shortly. > > sean > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:18:23 +0100, Martin Marinschek > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > >
