incubator-adffaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simon Lessard" <simon.lessar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:27:55 GMT
Personally I don't think a TLP would be a good idea just yet since JSF is
still relatively new compared to some older well known frameworks. I think
it's easier for new users to find all they need from one entry point and
MyFaces seems the right place for that, at least for now.

Also, being a subproject will probably improve the users' confidence in
library compatibility as well as encourage that compatibility to be
kept/improved by developers.

It may just be a feeling, but it seems to me that making Trinidad TLP right
away would make it look a bit like a loner, especially since Tobago and
Tomahawk are MyFaces sub projects. If JSF component sets should be TLP(s),
then I think it should be done all at the same time, and this cannot be
achieved until we harmonize Tomahawk, Trinidad and Tobago imho.


My 2ยข,

~ Simon

On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>
> That was also a point of Noel, when proposing the RCF donation thing.
> He was asking, why not having a "JSF components" project.
>
> Perhaps that might be an interesting option, not sure yet; but when
> RCF arrives somewhen.. there would be another component set.
>
> Perhaps we should move the discussion for a "split" to the MyFaces DEV
> list, that the MyFaces PMC is also able to comment.
>
> The components project could have a similar fashion like Jakarta.
>
> But since this isn't yet the case, I'd agree that a subproject is the
> best, for now.
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 4/11/07, Adam Winer <awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If there was an idea to split MyFaces into an implementation
> > half and a component set half, each as separate TLPs, then
> > I'd see your point - but as it is, MyFaces the TLP is both
> > an implementation and (currently) 2 component sets.
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 4/10/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist@mvdb.net> wrote:
> > > Sorry for the one in all reply..
> > >
> > > Ok, let's switch perspective's here. MyFaces (the codebase) is a JSF
> implementation.
> > > Tomahawk and Trinidad are JSF component sets. I am not comparing the
> possible overlap of the
> > > component sets, I am  focussing on the possible lack of overlap in
> community of the JSF
> > > implementation and the component sets. Different goals, different
> users and different developers
> > > (although the last is not yet the case, it is most likely someone
> interested in components is not
> > > interested in coding on the JSF implementation).
> > >
> > > Just playing bad cop here though, to hopefully prevent this situation
> (if you are aware of these
> > > signs you can watch out for it)
> > >
> > > Not going to vote -1 on a move to MyFaces.
> > >
> > > Mvgr,
> > > Martin
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message