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 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 >> >
-- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
