enhancing (but not overstuffing, KISS) Orchestra makes sense. No use to split the libraries further. - add the subflows - add the s:token (double posting)
other parts: no preference regards Alexander -----Original Message----- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:16 AM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces For me, a merger makes sense. The question is who will do the work, though. Some reflections on the modules: - ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense here (the notion of subflows which - Clay: Yes, obviously Facelets has won the race - we should all concentrate our efforts there, so that the JSF community can profit as a whole (and is not splitted) - Tiger-extensions: again, this would make sense in Orchestra, as an alternative way of configuring Orchestras beans (and also other beans, of course) to using Spring - test-framework: we've long used it in MyFaces, but for recent tests both Matthias and me have used EasyMock, it is somewhat easier to define changing interface behaviour with EasyMock than with static mock-classes. Still, this is valuable, and should be a separate module in the merger. - validators - no, probably not really - s:token: I'd love to have a generic way of preventing duplicated posts. But I guess this is something that Orchestra could eventually handle? apart from that, I don't know much more about Shale - sorry. regards, Martin On 10/22/07, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, so what about having a 'myfaces dormant' project where each module gets > added where it seems there is no real maintainer. > This could be a place for abandoned sandbox stuff too. > I know, the word 'maintainer' is not well placed in the context of an apache > community, but in the end I think it would be fair to show to users that no > one is really working on an project. > > > Mario > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Grant Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Monday, Okt 22, 2007 6:02 pm > Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces > To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>To: "MyFaces > Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org> > > Conceptually, I am in favor of a merge. I wouldn't wait for JSF 2.0 to do > it, though. +1. > > > > > >On 10/22/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At least, 1 > year, that is my guess. > > > >So, I agree w/ Kito here > > > >-M > > > >On 10/22/07, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or more > away.... > >> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action > >> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring > >> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM > >> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; MyFaces Development > >> > Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces > >> > > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project. > >> > So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting) should not > >> > move, > >> > but just stay in Shale. > >> > Also let's see where templating and component development goes before > >> > making > >> > a decision about Clay. > >> > So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it comes to JSF 2 > >> > all > >> > Add-Ons move to MyFaces. > >> > > >> > Bernhard > >> > > >> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag > >> > > von Craig > >> > > McClanahan > >> > > Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 01:48 > >> > > An: MyFaces Development; Shale Developers List > >> > > Betreff: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > * Remoting > >> > > > > Unsure, as most of this can be done with PPR too. > >> > > > > >> > > > +1 This is pretty useful and easy to use, and will affect JSF 2.0. > >> > > > >> > > A secondary benefit is near-zero config for resource access, > >> > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
