incubator-adffaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeanne Waldman <jeanne.wald...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:52:23 GMT
Simon,
I like your arguments and after reading this thread, I like the idea
of a subproject better than a TLP too. I wanted to comment so
ya'll will know there are more people reading the thread and
forming an opinion than have been commenting thus far. :)
- Jeanne

Simon Lessard wrote:
> 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
View raw message