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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
