If we had 4 separate jars, the lazy people (like me), wouldn't have an issue, they'd just copy everything into their lib folder and it would work. People wanting something more specific would have to read the docs.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:55:25 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. The "Apache MyFaces Implementation" (sub)-project > > This is the Main Project consisting of three parts: > > - MyFaces JSR-127 API > > - MyFaces Shared classes > > - MyFaces Implementation > > I think this is a worthy goal but there are some things to consider. > As you say, shared is shared between the components and > implementation. What if there are changes to be made in shared that > are required for a new component? > > A slight variation on your proposal might include four subprojects to > the main project > > 1.) API > 2.) Impl > 3.) Shared > 4.) Components > > Whenever releasing a new Impl you would probably also release a new > Shared. Same for components. > > > All three parts get released as separate jars, but have the same release > > number which is in turn in sync with the JSF spec version. So, first > > official release number we should target at after having passed TCK is 1.1.0 > > All three parts are released in separate jars called: > > myfaces-api-1.1.0.jar > > myfaces-shared-1.1.0.jar > > myfaces-impl-1.1.0.jar > > I like the numbering scheme being consistent with the JSF API. We > would definitely regret *not* doing this. > > > 3. The "Apache MyFaces Components" sub-project > > The MyFaces extended and custom components. > > The release numbering is independent from "Apache MyFaces > > Implementation", but should also be in sync with the JSF Spec. > > Again, I agree with your numbering suggestion. > > > We release the components > > - as a separate jar called myfaces-components-1.x.y (depending on a > > specific myfaces-shared-x.x.x.jar) > > - as an all-in-one jar called myfaces-full-1.x.y (containing shared, > > impl and components - but not the API!) > > > > IMHO, there is no need for a components+shared jar as longs as we > > document the dependency clearly. Quite the contrary, every additional > > jar would make things worse and confuse people that are too lazy to read > > docs (like me) and just copy every jar they find into their lib dir. Ok, > > forget about that. Of course I would never do things like that! ;-) > > Why get rid of components+shared but still have a component + shared + > impl + components? I think you have a good point about confusion with > the different "combination" jars (plus the larger file sizes for the > nightlies.) So why not get rid of all of them and just have the four > separate jars (api, impl, shared and components?) > > > Manfred > > sean > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
