RE: Components subproject (was RE: [VOTE] Two tree controls)

[Martin Cooper]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Abrams, Howard A wrote:
No, I am talking about the way the apache project is structured and
releases scheduled:
I think it makes sense for the development goals of the components to be
separate from the development goals of the implementation. After all,
the components are useful without the MyFaces implementation, and the
implementation is useful without the components. I would expect that
once the implementation passes the TCK, there will be only the
occasional bug fix until work on JSF 1.2 starts. In contrast, I would
expect that there will be many updates of the components between the TCK
and JSF 1.2. And once work on JSF 1.2 is in progress, I would expect
that it will need to release more often than the components until it
passes the TCK.
If the component and implementation will have such different schedules
and goals, why tie their releases together? What I am proposing is that
we split the MyFaces apache project into an implementation subproject
and a components subproject; each would have their own deliverables. For
convenience, when we release the components we could also create a
distribution that packaged the latest implementation along with the
latest components, and vice-versa.
This makes a lot of sense to me. We've done something similar in Struts, 
where we separated out the core and have separate subprojects for taglibs, 
Tiles, etc.

I would point out, though, that it's going to be much, much easier to do 
this kind of thing once you're using Subversion instead of CVS. ;-)

--
Martin Cooper

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:54 AM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Components subproject (was RE: [VOTE] Two tree controls)
Howard,
There is already an ant build script that can build and release the
JSF implementation separate from the custom components.  So it is
already possible to use the JSF Implementation without the components.
 Is this what you are after or are you looking for something more?
sean
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:50:16 -0500, Abrams, Howard A
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not so worried about 1.0.9, my comment was directed more towards
the
release after this one. Since there are many people that will want
to
use an Apache licensed certified JSF Implementation, but may not
have
the need for the MyFaces components, I thought I'd bring up the idea
of
making the components a subproject.
Anyone have any thoughts?
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:45 AM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Two tree controls
Howard,
I think we have resolved this issue for now.  I agree with you
that
this type of disagreement should not impact the next release.
Since
we can't seem to find a way out of the tree vs tree2 discussion
both
will be included in the next release (and all forseeable future
releases.)  So there will be no scheduling impact on the next
release
now that this has been resolved.
sean
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:56:09 -0500, Abrams, Howard A
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+0
I suggest that the MyFaces custom components be moved to a
subproject. A
debate such as "Tree vs. Tree2" shouldn't hold up a release of
the
JSF
implementation and API.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 5:56 AM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: [VOTE] Two tree controls
I propose a vote to end the tree vs tree2 controversey.  Since
it
seems that Oliver and I have reached an impasse (to put it
mildly), I
move that we have two tree controls: tree and tree2 and let
the
user
decide which is best for them.
While I think it is unfortunate that we cannot agree on a
single
new
tree control together this is probably the best course of
action
for
the sake of the team.  So I'd like a vote on this so I can
know
for
sure how to go forward.
I will start the voting ... +1 for me
ps. I know we don't like voting but I think its important to
have
voting for big decisions like this.  Oliver and I have both
put a
lot
of time into the respective tree controls so its only fair
that we
ask
the group for direction on how to proceed.