On 12/12/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/9/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let's say that Shale and MyFaces wanted to share some underpinning code, > > meaning that neither will run without it. Just for the sake of argument, > > let's pretend it's something like Commons Resources, but it lives at > > MyFaces. Now someone who has been using the JSF RI decides they want to > use > > Shale as well. It seems pretty odd to me to have to tell them that they > > *have to* go get some extra component from another project that is > largely > > viewed as a competing JSF implementation to the one they're already > using. > > MyFaces is both a "completing" JSF implementation (Myfaces impl) and > also one of the largest 3rd-party add-ons of extra functionality > (components, validators) for all JSF implementations > (Tomahawk/Sandbox). So it's not quite that unusual. After all, > people come to the Struts project to get Shale or Tiles, even though > they're not using the "competing" Struts framework.
You're still not understanding what I'm saying. I'm talking about a situation in which someone wants to use Shale with the RI and it *will not work* without some extra pieces from MyFaces. That doesn't make sense to me, and it's not going to go over well with some organisations that want to standardise on the RI. -- Martin Cooper The shared code in tomahawk is primarily for building components > better and easier. It certainly makes the most sense to keep this > code with Tomahawk since it's an integral part of all tomahawk > components. > > There's probably a certain class of sharable code that's not closely > tied to anything else (end-user utility functions) and could be put > into any project: shale, tomahawk, or a new jsf-commons. The shale > base backing bean class is a good example of this. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
