Hello Martin,
the resource issue is not a real problem, can solved later.
Please look at the latest Revised Reorg Proposal from Sean and me.
Can you comment the proposed structure?
Regards
Bernd
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
@Sean,
today, I'll try to spare an hour to think about that resources issue
again. I still hope to find a solution ;)
regards,
Martin
On 1/7/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but until then, the clear winner is what makes it easiest to the
user, and that's Bernd's suggestion, right?
the thing ought to work out of the box.
regards,
Martin
On 1/6/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And, once we get to JSF 1.2, "provided" is a clear
winner because web containers will need to provide a JSF
implementation.
-- Adam
On 1/6/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/6/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anything that's a compile time dependency of library Foo
where a user of Foo is responsible for supplying that dependency
should be declared "provided".
The Maven team usually puts it as "... can reasonably be expected to
be provided at runtime." But Maven 2.0 doesn't have anything in place
to deal with the "choice of implementations" situation, and so
'provided' is probably the best bet.
This will put the responsibility of choosing an implementation on the
user-- either by declaring a dependency or installing it in the
container. (Or, I suppose, by using a container that already provides
it.) I think that's reasonable.
--
Wendy
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
--
Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development
Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com
phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333
