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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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¢, > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
