not really mixing; For the trinidad-sandbox, I'll put in a renderer from Tomahawk, to show this as a show-case...
But, not really mixing both. As I said,I am not a fan of a <containsEveryThing:comp /> lib. The whole incompatibility is true for several libs; due to not having a clean integration-layer abstraction. I hope that JSF2.0 will fix it. -M On Nov 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Michael Heinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mixing tomahawk and trinidad is a very bad idea in my eyes! > All projects that use a4j or other ajax enabled component frameworks are > not compatible to Trinidad (or each other). > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Matthias Wessendorf > Sent: Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 12:24 > To: MyFaces Discussion > Subject: Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad > > > > 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 > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
