Simon, is your conclusion then that Tomahawk should die?
To be honest, my perception is quite different from this. We have a large user-base, and I'm certainly all for keeping Tomahawk up-to-date as much as possible and still improve it where we can. And, I generally don't see the use of having 10 different ways of maintaining components in MyFaces, the first step to a more maintainable Tomahawk-component-set must therefore be to change the build-system to the one used by MyFaces 1.2, Trinidad and (hopefully also) the new commons library! regards, Martin On 1/30/08, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > As being the guy who has created the tomahawk 1.2 branch and spent a lot of > time with it, upgrading to 1.2 is not an easy task because as Simon > mentioned the code is old and crusty. > > I agree that non rendering stuff should be moved to commons, I've some > candidates on my own from sandbox and tomahawk for commons. > > For autogeneration, one must generate all the component metadata, this all > has been discussed on ML by the way. > > I still think tomahawk 1.2 makes sense. > > Cagatay > > On Jan 30, 2008 11:02 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Jan 30, 2008 9:53 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I see Leonard is currently doing a lot of work on something called > > "tomahawk 1.2", which surprised me a little. > > > > > > I have checked the mail archives, and see some discussions happening > > around june 2007 regarding having a version of tomahawk specifically for > > JSF1.2. > > > > I saw the activity on tomahawk 1.2 as well, and was also a little > > surprised, since nothing regarding that has been discussed here on the > > ML. > > > > > > > > But since then, we have started "apache commons". I think therefore that > > rather than have a tomahawk 1.2, it would be better to split tomahawk up > > into pieces that live in "commons" modules, or at least extract all the > bits > > we can, then call the remaining bits something other than "tomahawk". > > > > +1 that sounds good; > > > > commons can be used in a wider range (like in tobago, trinidad, ice-faces, > > ...) > > the additional UI comps (like nice (dojo-based) tables etc can become > > Tomahawk) > > also worth to check for promotions of the sandbox (was recently > > already discussed), like > > the PPR stuff. > > > > > > > > Tomahawk code is really rather old and crusty and I don't see a lot of > > point moving it as-is to JSF1.2. > > > > > > Getting a release of tomahawk 1.1.7 out, however, would be a very good > > idea. > > > > +1 here as well > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
