> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: 'MyFaces Development'; 'Gary VanMatre' > Subject: Re: shale-test location (was RE: JSF 2.0 component set) > > > > I don't really see why the physical location affects the ability to > fix bugs > > or do enhancements in parallel, unless it depends on some common > > implementation classes. Or, are you talking more about releases? > > > Well releases are part of it. I was meerly bringing up that the Bridge > (even MyFaces) have impls which perform the logic for "ExternalContext" > expected of their various specs. These are duplicated somewhat in the > shale-tests. If it were moved over to faces, both the core-team and > the > bridge team would be able to maintain the test harnesses with the code > they are writing. For instance, Mock the Bridge and Servlet API's and > Mock the FacesContextFactory. It would, in turn, return an > ExternalContext which (while being based off the myfaces or bridge > impl) > would also expose the setters needed to test thing. But ultimately, > the > underlying implementations would run under the covers. This would much > easier reflect reality.
I don't see why you still can't use the internals of these projects, though. Either way, it increases the number of dependencies for shale-test. > That said, I was just bringing up the idea that I wouldn't argue > against > it. The Bridge (and some of the projects I'm doing in commons) need > released versions of a portlet test harness and I wouldn't mind adding > these test cases to Trinidad either. Whether I pull them from Shale or > MyFaces makes no real difference to me, but I could help maintain them > better if they were in MyFaces -- for a current committer of shale I am > not. :) Fair enough. > > Scott > > Well, I'm happy whether it's in MyFaces or Shale, as long as we can > update > > it for JSF 1.2 and the Bridge. So, if you want it to be part of > MyFaces and > > are willing to deal with the work of getting it established, I think > you'd > > have a good case. > > > > What do others think (especially Gary)? > > > > > >> Kito D. Mann wrote: > >> > >>> *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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > >
