Yes, Oracle donated parts of the ADF Faces codebase to the Apache Software Foundation. Parts means, that not all stuff has been donated. Stuff like Telnet or IM support (like [1]) is still named ADF Faces.
That code, which has been donated is currently named "Apache Trinidad Podling" and is undergoing the Apache Incubator. Note, this is *not* a fullblown project yet. At the end of the day it may endup as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces project, like Apache Tobago (see [2]). Regarding the *adf* in the current donated codebase, we will start on renaming the packages (and some clazz names) to Trinidad during the next weeks. And Cosma is absolutly right, that components have been used in project. Incubation doesn't mean that is "crappy unstable stuff". The incubation phase is important to solve issues like IP. On [3] we created a wiki page, where people can add their company, when they used ADF Faces / Trinidad. But to comeback to your problem, what to use.... My suggestion is: MyFaces 1.1.4 (will be out soon ;)) as Runtime Trinidad for the component set Facelets as View instead of JSP. HTH, Matthias [1] http://www.oracle.com/technology/obe/obe1013jdev/telnet/eim_telnet_final.htm [2] http://myfaces.apache.org/tobago [3] http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Companies_using_Trinidad On 7/19/06, Cosma Colanicchia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oracle donated the ADF Faces library to Apache, and here it has been renamed to "Apache Trinidad" to distinguish it from the original Oracle library. Somewhere you will still find the "ADF Faces" name because the refactoring is not yet complete. Note that develoment has been done and will continue indipendently on both projects, so they will likely diverge in the future. Cosma 2006/7/19, Cyrille37 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Cosma Colanicchia a écrit : > > They are not concurrents. MyFaces provides a JSF implementation (as > > the Sun RI does), while ADF Faces/Trinidad is a library of components > > with some added services. If you are talking about "MyFaces Tomahawk" > > , then yes, there is some overlap with Trinidad, but they are probably > > going to be merged in future. > > > > Right now, you will have some troubles only using both Tomahawk and > > Trinidad. For example Tomahawk components will not be aware of > > Trinidad skinning system and of its client validation framework. I > > think that it is better to choose one of the two until they'll be > > merged or refactored to work well togheter. > thanks a lot. > > Here is another question : > > Is there a difference between "Oracle ADF Faces" and "Apache ADF > Faces/Trinidad" ?? Is it the same project ? > > cyrille. > > > > Regards > > Cosma > > > > > > 2006/7/19, Cyrille37 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> ::SammyRulez:: a écrit : > >> > my choices > >> > > >> > myfaces + tomahawk component: all the gui you need > >> > facelets: decouple design and component > >> > ajaxanywhere: add some exotic behaviour non breaking jsf cycle > >> Thank you very much for your comment. > >> > >> What about MyFaces and ADF ? They seem concurents, isn't it ? Why we > >> should one or other ? > >> > >> cyrille. > >> > >> > Application Framework... I really don't need them.. I sense that good > >> > design ad c couple of utility classes ca do anything you need... IMHO > >> > > >> > 2006/7/19, Cyrille37 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> Hello, > >> >> > >> >> There are few projects around JSF that make me lost. I've to make a > >> >> choice to start the study of a future project, it's time for me to > >> >> select technologies. > >> >> > >> >> At first, I've to choice a Application Framework. Choices are Spring, > >> >> Tapestry. > >> >> Then a GUI Framework. Here is my problem, JSF is in spotlight so > >> looks > >> >> to be a good choice, but there are several projects and I could > >> not make > >> >> my choice. > >> >> > >> >> Have you got an opinion which could light me ?? > >> >> Thanks you very much. > >> >> cyrille. > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
-- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
