> Take an example: most people would agree facelets is good idea. The > Jsf 1.2 spec is out since May 11, 2006. We're 1,5 yr(one and a half > year!) further down the line but there is no working combination for > MF1.2 + Facelets + Tomahawk 2.0 (the latter, I've been told, is in > line with the MF 1.2 release , and indeed, I've had worse problems > using Toma 116 or 117 + MF1.2 + Facelets) > 1,5 year. For those disagreeing: check this mailing list or the posted > bugs: they're about basic stuff not working.
myfaces 1.2 works. myfaces 1.2.1 will be out soon, and contains tons of fixes/enhancements there is no tomahawk 2.0 (not really) Again, I am still thinking, that JSF 1.2 isn't really needed. When JSF2 comes out, there will be much much more value on the table. > > Frankly I'm cornered with bugs for this combination to the extend I > will have to downgrade again to MF1.1. For a new project that I > started half a yr ago. This is sad. not sure why using myfaces 1.1.x is bad. > > I like Matthias's idea of a common base best. I hope the Toma/Trini > shells on top of it can be made very thin on the sort term (would be > very OO-spirited as well). actually, this discussion is old. (one) goal is having a *common* lib, that can be used (in first place) w/ all Trin/tom/tob. > On the mid/long: this would allow to diverge between stable and > development components, kinda like Tomahawk and Sandbox now. > But of the stable components, I am convinced the best approach is to > have them all at verybody's disposal with just one prefix (it even > sounds obvious no? Or am I the only one). hrm, not really one 100% sure, that a "super" lib is a good thing (tm) -Matthias > > --Wolf > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
