incubator-adffaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthias Wessendorf" <mat...@apache.org>
Subject VOTE graduation (was Re: Next steps? (was Re: Is trinidad ready for graduation ?))
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:04:20 GMT
Hello Trinidad PPMC members and Trinidad community,

we have discussed during the last months (time by time, not permanent)
that Trinidad is ready to graduate from the Apache Incubator; we also
managed to get releases of the artifacts out. Main question is (see
the original email threads) should Trinidad be a subproject of Apache
MyFaces or should it be a TLP.

Please cast your votes (only one is possible):

[ ] graduate as a subproject of the Apache MyFaces community
[ ] graduate as a TLP
[ ] not ready to graduate, because...


-Matthias

On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> The dependency will be also the same, if we (MyFaces) go the proposed
> route w/ Trinidad as the base for Tomahawk².
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 4/11/07, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As long as the community is somewhat similar (at least there are
> > people in both communities), I'm +1 for taking it in under MyFaces. My
> > only problem with the subproject approach is that when RCF comes out,
> > we'll have two sub projects where one sub project depends on the other
> > - kind of awkward.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 4/11/07, Jeanne Waldman <jeanne.waldman@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > 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 2¬Ę,
> > > >
> > > > ~ 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
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
> --
> 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