> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:16 AM > To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces > > For me, a merger makes sense.
Seems almost unanimous :-). > The question is who will do the work, though. That's always the question :-). > Some reflections on the modules: > > - ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense > here (the notion of subflows which I like Orchesta a lot, but I don't think the view controller/dialog features should be tied to Spring.... > - Clay: Yes, obviously Facelets has won the race - we should all > concentrate our efforts there, so that the JSF community can profit as > a whole (and is not splitted) Facelets definitely needs more resources too. > - Tiger-extensions: again, this would make sense in Orchestra, as an > alternative way of configuring Orchestras beans (and also other beans, > of course) to using Spring I think we'd still need to support standard managed beans, though. > - test-framework: we've long used it in MyFaces, but for recent tests > both Matthias and me have used EasyMock, it is somewhat easier to > define changing interface behaviour with EasyMock than with static > mock-classes. Still, this is valuable, and should be a separate module > in the merger. Could shale-test be enhanced by using EasyMock? ' > - validators - no, probably not really > - s:token: I'd love to have a generic way of preventing duplicated > posts. But I guess this is something that Orchestra could eventually > handle? Honestly, this may be more of a Tomahawk think. Perhaps a specialized form component? > apart from that, I don't know much more about Shale - sorry. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 10/22/07, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, so what about having a 'myfaces dormant' project where each > module gets > > added where it seems there is no real maintainer. > > This could be a place for abandoned sandbox stuff too. > > I know, the word 'maintainer' is not well placed in the context of an > apache > > community, but in the end I think it would be fair to show to users > that no > > one is really working on an project. > > > > > > Mario > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Grant Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Monday, Okt 22, 2007 6:02 pm > > Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces > > To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: > "MyFaces > > Development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Conceptually, I am in favor of a merge. I wouldn't wait for JSF 2.0 > to do > > it, though. +1. > > > > > > > > >On 10/22/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At least, > 1 > > year, that is my guess. > > > > > >So, I agree w/ Kito here > > > > > >-M > > > > > >On 10/22/07, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> 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 > > >> > > > >> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > >> > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag > > >> > > von Craig > > >> > > McClanahan > > >> > > Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 01:48 > > >> > > An: MyFaces Development; Shale Developers List > > >> > > Betreff: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > * Remoting > > >> > > > > Unsure, as most of this can be done with PPR too. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > +1 This is pretty useful and easy to use, and will affect > JSF 2.0. > > >> > > > > >> > > A secondary benefit is near-zero config for resource access, > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
