On Nov 29, 2007 9:34 AM, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > I don't think a separation between api and impl jars is useful. > > > I second that. For the same reasons. It makes things unnecessary > complicated .... > To ensure api stability community review should be enough - and then > there is a maven plugin for that, no? > > BTW: I thought we agreed on a structure like > myfaces-jsfcommons-converters > myfaces-jsfcommons-validators > ... >
this is something, that I like more; > Also overly complex, but something I can learn to understand .... > > Lets reiterate: I prefer to start with a simple jsfcommons project where > we have no faces-config.xml (at least not in a place where JSF loads it > automatically). well, when we put in the converters/validators, we will also have faces-cfg for them... > Providing a jsfcommons-faces-config.xml which the user has to add to the > configuration will avoid any side-effect when dropping in our jsfcommons > jar. It also allows to selectively active things as the users can change > their own configuration as required. -1 > > Regarding the sandbox: I'd like to suggest to use the tomahawk sandbox > for myfaces land at all. Lets promote the tomahawk-sandbox one level > higher - thats it. +1 no sandbox inside the "master" project. For Trinidad Sandbox, I am planing to create it at the same level, where projects like tomahawk, trinidad or portlet-bridge are -M > > Ciao, > Mario > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
