First: my +1 for a separate jar, and myfaces-share or myfaces-commons.jar as name - I don't mind either, I don't like core, though.
@Volker: That's an interesting question. We might need to split up the components into two groups, and create a new component pack name for render independent components - I wouldn't put them into core or commons, whatever the name might be. We could be creative again ;) regards, Martin On 11/30/05, Volker Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > in my oppinion a jar for the shared files is the best way, but before > fixing a name: I think there could be a need for another jar. > > There are some components in towmahawk.jar which also could be usefull > in combination with tobago. E.g. i don't like depend on towmahawk.jar > just to use t:saveState or t:aliasBean. Because of differend renderkid > ids it is not possible to mix tobago and towmahawk components. But i > like the option to use render independend components also with tobago. > > Could we put those components into the 'core', or however, jar ? Or > should we create a own artifact for those components? If so we should > think about this name here also. > > Regards > > Volker > > Bill Dudney wrote: > > +1 on the structural change > > +0 on name change either way - An argument can be made for any of the > > 3 proposed names (share, core or commons) so I'm open to any of them > > and let those with passion on one of the 3 sort it out ;-) > > > > TTFN, > > > > -bd- > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2005, at 1:10 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote: > > > >> 2005/11/30, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >>> I wanted to resurrect one of our favorite threads ... "Should the > >>> shared code be in its own jar?" > >>> > >>> The reason why I bring this up now is that I'm starting to experiment > >>> with an M2 build for MyFaces. In addition to some of the arguments > >>> made earlier we can now add Maven to the list of reasons why we might > >>> want to consider this. > >>> > >>> From my early exploration of Maven it seems like the shared stuff can > >>> be handled best by making the impl and tomahawk subprojects have a > >>> dependency on the share project. In the past I have not been too wild > >>> about the shared jar idea but I think Maven may be able to help keep > >>> us and our users informed as to the exact dependencies when using > >>> MyFaces or Tomahawk. > >>> > >>> First off, I would suggest we call it *core* instead of share. I > >>> think "core" helps to imply that it is mandatory. They already know > >>> they need api and impl (if they have read the JSF spec.) The "core" > >>> wording will let them know they need this also. > >>> > >>> Maven has some cool stuff for maintaining and documenting > >>> dependencies. The tomahawk page of the website can automatically be > >>> updated so that for each new release of tomahawk, the dependency list > >>> will be updated. Its also possible that we can have tomahawk depend > >>> on an earlier version of the core then the impl. So we can compile > >>> against older versions that might be in the third party J2EE distros > >>> (like JBoss). Anyways, the point is that Maven may finally provide > >>> the best solution to this problem so far. > >> > >> > >> This confirms my feelings that I always had. Although I nearly know > >> nothing about Maven I start to like it ;-) > >> My definite > >> +1 on having a separate jar with all the stuff from the share dir > >> > >> Regarding the name: I agree that "share" might not be the best of all > >> names for the end user jar. Although - from a source code view - this > >> name perfectly describes what it stands for and how the code is used. > >> > >> Having said that I'm not too happy with "core" as an alternative name. > >> -0.5 on "core", because: > >> As I understand it, the core of a software product is the part where > >> all strings are tied up and the basic processing is done. The core of > >> MyFaces sits in Impl and API. FacesServlet, UIComponentBase and > >> UIComponentTag are those classes that come to my mind when I think of > >> the "core". > >> The shared classes are a loosely coupled set of utilities, helpers and > >> convenient base classes. Think of it as kind of commons classes for > >> JSF. Not having doublechecked this yet, I have the feeling that most > >> classes of our shared code are even compatible to foreign > >> implementations (RI). So, why not give it a life of its own and head > >> for that "commons" direction? So, my proposal is to call it > >> "myfaces-commons.jar" in the meantime while heading for > >> "commons-jsf.jar" in the long run - after having coordinated this with > >> Apache Jakarta Commons guys, of course. We already have some good > >> connections to the Jakarta team, right? > >> Yes, sure, comparing our code to Jakarta Commons quality (javadoc in > >> particular), this might be a long and cumbersome path... ;-) > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Manfred > > > > > > -- > Don't answer to From: address! > Mail to this account are droped if not recieved via mailinglist. > To contact me direct create the mail address by > concatenating my forename to my senders domain. > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
