Hello Scott, Scott O'Bryan schrieb: > Bernd, > > So to get this straight, is this going to be an extra jar file that you > add to the classpath and allows for partial lifecycle processing or is > this a change to the Trinidad impl itself? > It's an optional jar file. But for a working partial lifecycle some of the renderer and javascript must be changed a little bit. The changes don't effect the old unoptimized lifecycle.
> If the latter, I think we need to be very careful about changing the > unoptimized lifecycle until people have a chance to wrap their heads > around it. If the former, then I would be willing to take a look, I had > some similar ideas recently and think this can only benifit the project. Certainly it should be reviewed by more people. I don't know all internals of trindad. > > Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before it's > committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a more > detailed look at it? I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not part of the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle module under http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/ or http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/ > > Also I don't undersand your todo's.. I have been off for a month with a > new child so I suppose it's possible I'm missing something. Without the code you can't understand the todo's. The list is only a summery of the todo's in the code. > Regards Bernd
