incubator-adffaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthias Wessendorf" <mat...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?)
Date Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:40:20 GMT
So, are the next steps to do a vote here, to graduate and being a
subproject of the MyFaces project ?

After that I think the MyFaces PMC needs to vote on accepting Trinidad
as a subproject

Last step is, letting Incubator PMC vote on approve the graduation.

Right ?

If yes, I'll start the vote here on graduation.

-M

On 4/9/07, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > On the other hand, if Trinidad wants to be a (Dare I say "The"?)
> > general purpose component set, then MyFaces community acceptance is
> > probably a good target to hit.   That's going to happen better as part
> > of the MyFaces community rather than as an independent TLP.  The
> > ad-hoc approach taken thus far for Tomahawk leaves something to be
> > desired in my opinion, so there's an opportunity available.
>
> that's my personal feeling, we (Trinidad) should go. I've the feeling,
> that a subproject is the best choice.
>
> > What I said was that the developers of Tomahawk have expressed an
> > interest in using Trinidad technology for Tomahawk for JSF 1.2.
> > Tomahawk is a loose collection of generic components with very little
> > tying the various components together.  Some components are strong,
> > and others are weak.   Each was authored without much thought to how
> > it fits in with the others, or how to provide for common
> > functionality.  That was not the case with Trinidad.
> >
> > Trinidad provides infrastructure for building components that Tomahawk
> > does not.    Just as the proposed RCF project uses Trinidad, Tomahawk
> > could be made to use Trinidad.
>
> +1 that was the main point in the related discussion on the myfaces dev list.
>
> > It could very well be that the best solution for Tomahawk for JSF 1.2
> > is to start with Trinidad and integrate into it those worthwhile
> > pieces of Tomahawk for JSF 1.1.   That's one way Tomahawk 2
> > developement could go, but it's certainly not the only way.  It's a
> > way that I personally favor, but I am only one of the MyFaces PMC
> > members.
>
> I am in your boat, Mike.
>
> > Trinidad isn't fundementally incompatible with Tomahawk -- if there
> > are areas where the two don't work well together,  there's no reason
> > to think that these cannot be resolved..   Furthermore, developers on
> > both projects have expressed strong interest in resolving any problem
> > areas.
>
> also a tomahawk2, based on Trinidad could close the gab....
> (not really a big gab there)
>
> > point  :-)   When I suggest that Trinidad will benefit by being part
> > of the greater MyFaces community, that's really what I mean :-)  I
> > think the converse is also true.
>
> +1
>
> > If it's a matter of one project merging into the other, however, I
> > think it probably makes more sense for Trinidad to join MyFaces and
> > not MyFaces to join Trinidad :-)
>
> yes.
>
> > Well, we're not schizophrenic at MyFaces yet, so we're still "other
> > issue" free :-)   It's true that a TLP won't make any technical
> > difference.    However, trying to join two communities is harder than
> > splitting an existing community.
>
> I'd like to see Trinidad as a súbproject of Apache MyFaces.
>
> -Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com

Mime
View raw message