-----Original Message----- From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:57 PM To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shale for 2.x? (was Re: RoadMap)
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:44:47 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Objectively, I think that Shale would be a better fit for Apache > MyFaces. If the scope of the MyFaces proposal were expanded to "building a JSF implementation and value added 'stuff' around it" instead of "building a JSF implementation, and oh by the way here's some components too", this might indeed be a possible future. I'm also looking at some other alternatives if the Struts folks decide not to go this way. > Back in the day, it might have been better if we had placed most of > our taglibs with Jakarta Taglibs, rather than keep them all here. I > think this is the same sort of thing. The problem with this theory relates to a similar issue that would be raised if Shale were a MyFaces subproject. It's the fact that the Struts tag libraries have dependencies on the Struts core, which in some cases (like manufacturing a form bean on demand, doing transaction tokens, and interacting with validation rules) are fairly deep. It would not have been particularly useful to create an arbitrary binding API between the two, just so the tags could theoretically be used on their own, without Struts. The situation with Shale inside of MyFaces would be muddled by a potential misunderstanding ... it would be silly to build such a thing that was dependent on MyFaces internals, when you would really want such an architecture to work on any JSF implementation (the same way that Struts works on top of any servlet/JSP container). It would be tiresome to keep having to deal with an incorrect perception, based on the fact that it would be a subproject. Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
