From: Gary VanMatre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:16 AM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'MyFaces Development' Cc: Kito D. Mann Subject: RE: JSF 2.0 component set
>From: "Kito D. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I just want to add that when we were talking about moving Shale over to > MyFaces, people were worried about resources for maintaining it. And Shale > is an *existing* code base :-). I think it'd make a lot more sense to > migrate the existing suites to JSF 2 branches. > The big issue I had with merging was that the majority didn't want to bring over all of shale. At this point, I don't think it would be responsible just to drop support unless you could offer a comparable feature. True. I thought it might make sense to bring the biggest pieces over to MyFaces, but if we can revive part of Shale's development, I'm fine with that too. I just wanted to avoid atrophy of the entire Shale code base :-). The shale's test library is one of the few that have not been reinvented over and over and that seemed to be where the root interest is with myfaces. In terms of maintaining Shale, we most certainly encourage contributions the same as myfaces :-) Of course :-). Gary > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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 > phone: +1 203-653-2989 > fax: +1 203-653-2988 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:39 PM > > To: MyFaces Development > > Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set > > > > Bruno, I totally agree, but we don't want a lot of dead projects out > > there either. My point, and I think Simon's as well, is that much of > > the contributions to the MyFaces Projects and renderkits comes from > > companies and individuals who have a vested interest in supporting the > > exis! ting re nderkits going forward. Getting MyFaces core up to 2.0 is > > going to take away interest from the new project as is getting > > renderkits like Trinidad to be JSF 2.0 compatible. This is not to say > > that there isn't an interest in this, but one could spend hundreds of > > developer hours getting their head around Trinidad alone, and without > > the support of the majority of those currently active in the community, > > this project may be doomed from the start. You may be able to leverage > > some resources from other projects by moving as much stuff as possible > > into the commons, but projects of this scope take a lot of time and my > > guess is that you're basically looking at growing a new community. > > > > I would seriously look at bringing a project of this scope into > > incubator first. It'll hopefully help you to build the community you &! gt; > ; need. > > > > Scott > > > > Bruno Aranda wrote: > > > I don't see why not we could start a new component set for jsf 2.0 if > > > there is enough interest within the developers and users. This is a > > > community thing and if people worked heavily in such a project and > > the > > > result was good, I don't see why it should not exist. If others want > > > to maintain Trinidad and Tobago, any help is welcome too. At the end, > > > it is up to each individual :) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > On 31/03/2008, *simon* > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Tomahawk certainly does need a radical refresh. It's got some > > useful > > > stuff, but ! is very ugly internally. > > > > > > There is slow work going on at the moment on something called the > > > myfaces "commons projects" (or some similar name). The idea is to > > > split > > > up tomahawk into about 4 different pieces. At the same time it's > > > therefore possible to discard the bits that have too much overlap > > with > > > other projects (esp Trinidad). > > > > > > That doesn't mean that the current Tomahawk will be abandoned, > > but > > > it is > > > an opportunity to scavenge the best bits for commons and discard > > the > > > rest. But I'd really like to see new stuff go into the "commons" > > > projects myself. Whether commons is JSF1.2 or JSF2.0 depends on > > the > > > relative progress of commons vs the JSF spec I suppose :-). > ! > &g t; > > > I can't see Trinidad being rewritten anytime soon; that's a > > pretty big > > > job. Just getting a core JSF-2.0 implementation done is likely to > > suck > > > up all the spare time of the current myfaces contributors. And, > > > like for > > > Tomahawk, there is a big pool of people who want to use Trinidad > > on > > > JSF1.2 (including the committers employed by Oracle) so the > > > current form > > > of Trinidad will not be going away in the near future. > > > > > > I'm not aware of anything in JSF2.0 that is a radical improvement > > over > > > JSF1.2. Lots of nice bits, but does it really make components > > work > > > faster or vastly more efficient than can be done within JSF1.2? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > ! > &g t; Simon > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 13:50 -0600, Scott O'Bryan wrote: > > > > +0 > > > > > > > > While I see the merit of starting over (and certainly wouldn't > > argue > > > > against a new component set based off of 2.0), I don't think we > > > should > > > > abadon/restrict renderkits from continuing to support emerging > > > > standards. I know that many of the folks on Trinidad are > > > interested in > > > > supporting 2.0 going forward and I would suspect the other > > > renderkits > > > > are as well. > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > Jesse Alexander (KSFH 323) wrote: > > > > > I am wondering whether the event of JSF 2.0 would not be a > > good > > > > > moment to create a new component set. > > > > > > > > > > Well... another component set? > > > > > > > > > > The main thoughts behind it are > > > > > - the 3 MyFaces component sets > > > > > - are somewhat incompatible > > > > > - have each their good points > > > > > - have some weak points > > > > > - are missing some "cool" components > > > > > - partially have duplicated components > > > > > - are partially missing important concepts > > > > > > > > > > JSF 2.0 brings a new concept to do components. > > > > > > > > > > Now it would be possible to update each component set to JSF > > > 2.0... > > > > > but a Tomahawk/JSF2 is "expected" to ! be back ward compatible. > > So it > > > > > would be difficult to radically change components or > > eliminate > > > some > > > > > duplicates... > > > > > > > > > > Whereas a new component set that would > > > > > - take all good concepts from the existing 3 component sets > > > > > (and maybe some more from other comp-sets?) > > > > > - deliver a clean set of components > > > > > - just do it for JSF 2.0 > > > > > - not have to take backwards compatibility into consideration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think if such a new component set would fit, then it would > > > be now the > > > > > right time to think about the requirements... and as soon as > > a > > > > &g! t; work able beta is around the first steps for the realization > > > could be > > > > > made... > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > Alexander > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
