> -----Original Message----- > From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:33 PM > To: 'dev@shale.apache.org' > Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces > > The spec develops over the time so even it's not finsihed we roughly > know > what will be in it, it's getting clearer when time moves on. > Maybe for the merger we don't have to set a hard dependency on JSF2, > but it > doesn't make sense to me to migrate any features which are not needed > anymore in the near furture like Remoting.
Seems to me it'd be easy to implement JSF 2.0 in MyFaces if we're already maintaining a similar code base... > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Kito D. Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 17:49 > > An: dev@shale.apache.org > > Betreff: RE: Merging Shale into MyFaces > > > > > > I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or > > more away.... > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM > > > To: 'dev@shale.apache.org'; MyFaces Development > > > Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project. > > > So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting) > > should not > > > move, > > > but just stay in Shale. > > > Also let's see where templating and component development > > goes before > > > making > > > a decision about Clay. > > > So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it > > comes to JSF 2 > > > all > > > Add-Ons move to MyFaces. > > > > > > Bernhard > > >
