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
