I don't think we will enjoy keeping some 100+ classes in sync across two different packages. Nor will I think that users who try to supply a patch who enjoy this. We couldn't use svn externals either b/c the files need to have different package statements.
The whole point of the shared code is to cut down on this type of headache. The RI has the luxury of just providing an implementation. They do not provide components so they don't have to share code. As Manfred put it, this code is shared between projects for a reason. I agree the current situation is not ideal and I'm open to your idea and anyone elses but so far this solution seems even worse. If you want to use a version of tomahawk that is incompatible with your MyFaces implementation on the web server, just upgrade the MyFaces version. Yes its a pain but it certainly doesn't seem to be insurmountable. Am I misssing something here? Is the problem more significant then upgrading your MyFaces implementation? sean On 10/24/05, John Fallows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Sean, > > On 10/24/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree the shared classes is the most important issue to focus on. I > > also agree -1 on repackaging them. We would live to regret that > > decision. > > Your current position is clear, but not your rationale. Can you > please elabotate so that we can better understand the perceived > downside of using this approach? > > Kind Regards, > John Fallows. >
