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 <[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
