+1 i don´t understand, but anyway
On 10/25/07, Ernst Fastl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 sounds great. > > On 10/25/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > > > I also have some suggestions for things to go into this project which > > would be helpful. > > > > Scott > > > > Paul Spencer wrote: > > > +1 for the commons project. > > > > > > Paul Spencer > > > > > > Mario Ivankovits wrote: > > >> Hi! > > >> > > >>> 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 > and > > >>> commons_2.0? > > >> Hmmmm .... I don't think so, at least for the start not. Lets start > > >> another module once we cross that bridge. > > >> > > >>> 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the > project(s)? > > >> Some stuff from the shared project which is definitely stable like > parts > > >> of org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.renderkit.RendererUtils > > >> The RequestParameterProvider from tomahawk-sandbox which do not have > a > > >> single component but is required in Orchestra. > > >> (Orchestra currently uses a copy of this framework) > > >> The RedirectTracker from tomahawk-sandbox. > > >> > > >> Thats all whats just popping out of my brain. > > >> > > >> Well, and in general what Mike outlined: > > >>> Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any > > >>> reasonable[1] combination of > > >>> > JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge, > > >>> > > >>> then it should be available here. > > >> > > >> There is room for this project, exact details about what we take over > > >> could be discussed then. > > >> > > >> Ciao, > > >> Mario > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
