On Nov 29, 2007 7:57 AM, Ron Smits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see > tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I would > prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
Putting them on-top of Trinidad is only one option. IMO the commons project will help alot and keeping Tomahawk separate might be a valid option too. I know that there are several projects that use them, and that like them. Sometimes you hear noise, but you know, you complain vs. 99 good feedbacks, the complain is what people outside remember... :-) > > It might be good though to maybe find more developers to keep the > versions working and in sync with eachother. Shout if you need some > help. you are more than welcome! -M > > Ron > > > On Nov 28, 2007 10:35 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 PM, Philippe Lamote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi List, > > > > > > Over the last half year, it seems Tomahawk, despite some fine > > > components, is dead; the 2.0 release hasn't gotten off the ground for > > > al these months, and no one seems to be actively developing it. > > > Trinidad on the other hand seems to acquire more and more momentum. > > > > it looks like, more and more questions on Trinidad are asked on the lists, > > that is true. I'd not say that Tomahawk is dead; I think there are some > > known > > issues and work arounds for that (using it w/ myfaces 1.1.x). > > I know people use it and works fine. > > > > > > > > Now, as Tomahawk has some really cool components Trinidada doesn't > > > have, and while there is for sure an overlap between the two, are > > > there any plans for getting rid of this project clutter and unifying > > > these two project lines, resulting in a focussed approach? > > > > You are right, when you say that Tomahawk has interesting components, > > that aren't available inside of Trinidad. But I'd not say, that Trinidad is > > not > > cool. > > > > > It is my feeling the current approach hurts the MF project. There > > > already was quite some comment on TSS on the fact MF was really late > > > > Yes, there were some comments, but there will always comments on almost > > every project :-) > > > > > in implementing the 1.2 spec(I know, not only for tech reasons), but > > > that's not the only problem: there are all these subprojects (what to > > > advise to newbies? I really couldn't tell) and if you happen to > > > combine Facelets + MF 1.2 + Tomahawk, you're in for a debugging fest! > > > The list of issues seems endless. It's no fun anymore. > > > > > > Therefore, in the view of the upcoming hackatron event in december, > > > could we share, here, some ideas/thoughts on possible/preferable > > > roapdmaps? I'd love to see > > > - a short term plan to address the Tomahawk 2.0 release > > > - a mid/long term plan to reduce project clutter (converge the > > > sublines!) We can move much faster and better, if focussed. > > > > Regarding a Tomahawk 2.0 release (or project) I'd love to see it on-top of > > the > > Trinidad API / Framework (in JSF-version 1.2) > > > > Like pick the "good" / "cool" Tomahawk components, and put them into > > Trinidad. > > That needs some work, sure. > > Willing to help ? > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > -Wolf > > > > > > (Ps I'm not pointing fingers here - I'm just genuinly concerned and > > > wondering how we could better pick things up from here) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > > > -- > I reject your reality and substitute my own > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
