Hi,
yes having subproject(s) sound very usefully!
What about packaging? These are possible scenarios: - api + shared + impl + comp (people who need all out of the box) - shared + impl + comp (people who want to use the RI API for some reason) - shared + comp (people who use the RI API and RI Impl for some reason) - api + shared + impl (people who do not want to use custom components)
think so too, that these are common "use-cases".
To cover all of these scenarios, we must at least release every part in one single jar. For convenience, we could additionally provide simple all-in-one jars. But keep in mind that the JSR-127 API always must be separated because of the javax.* namespace that is handled specially by container classloaders. For Tomcat JSR-127 API should be in /common/lib for instance.
Thoughts?
Perhaps one of the "older" Apaches (like Martin) may help us on separating? Since he also manages the structure for Struts, as far as I know.
So Martin, will you assist us?
But using Subversion is for now no option, since lot's of our developers are using idea intelliJ (which seams to have no/no good subversion support)
-Matthias
Manfred
Martin Cooper schrieb:
> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-- Matthias We�endorf Aechterhoek 18 DE-48282 Emsdetten Germany phone: +49-2572-9170275 cell phone: +49-179-1118979 email: matzew AT apache DOT org url: http://www.wessendorf.net callto://mwessendorf (Skype) icq: 47016183
