ok, let's start with t:ajax We can always add a new JAR, for mfx:ajax... But to get this started, I am fine with the following:
1.) +1 2.) +1 3.) -0 4.) +1 (I will do that some when later) I think this now we have some kinda agreement, right ? On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The mf:ajax solution is the only one that completely breaks compatibility >> with Mojarra. Applications using mf:ajax would simply fails on Mojarra. None > > not when that is an extra JAR, that is just shipped with the myfaces > core release. > > -M > >> of solutions [1] to [3] would do so. Alex and me don't have a binding vote, >> but it'll be us implementing this and we are both -1 on mf:ajax. >> >> mf:ajax is also worse than t:ajax because it doesn't bring myfaces >> Javascript to Mojarra users. The Mojarra Javascript needs a lot of >> improvement... >> >> Best Regards, >> Ganesh >>> >>> -1 b/c that adds an odd dependency to tomahawk... >>> mfx:xyz does make sense to be the home for myfaces core "improvements". >>> >>> -M >>> >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
