I'd like to propose that we discontinue support for the Shale-Tiles
component. I've spent some time looking at the TilesViewHandler over
the last week or so and comparing it to the TilesTwoViewHandler that
is unreleased, but is part of the MyFaces Tomahawk project. The
conclusion I've come to is th
On 12/26/07, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we discontinue support for the Shale-Tiles
> component. I've spent some time looking at the TilesViewHandler over
> the last week or so and comparing it to the TilesTwoViewHandler that
> is unreleased, but is part of the
2007/12/26, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'd like to propose that we discontinue support for the Shale-Tiles
> component.
+1
Supporting the Tomahawk-thingy is the best option IMO.
Antonio
From: "Antonio Petrelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2007/12/26, Greg Reddin :
> > I'd like to propose that we discontinue support for the Shale-Tiles
> > component.
>
> +1
> Supporting the Tomahawk-thingy is the best option IMO.
>
+1
I agree too. The shale tiles view handler has always strugg
Seems to be consensus. To answer Rahul's question, I believe the
MyFaces view handler is doing the exact same thing. The Shale one
looks so different simply because the Tiles API has undergone so much
change since the Shale one was created.
First chance I get I will go through and put a bullet in
On 1/2/08, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems to be consensus.
Indeed.
> To answer Rahul's question, I believe the
> MyFaces view handler is doing the exact same thing. The Shale one
> looks so different simply because the Tiles API has undergone so much
> change since the Shale one
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Does the MyFaces view handler support JSF 1.2?
-=> Gregg <=-
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 1/2/08, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Seems to be consensus.
>>
>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
>> To answer Rahul's question, I believe the
>> MyFaces view handler is doing the exact
On Jan 2, 2008 6:25 PM, Gregg Leichtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does the MyFaces view handler support JSF 1.2?
I'm ashamed to say I don't know what's changed in the ViewHandler API
between 1.1 and 1.2. If there are changes I suspect the current view
handler from MyFaces or Shale wouldn't be c
I brought this up, since the Shale developers might want to more
carefully consider the decision to drop Tiles support along the way to
MyFaces integration or at least consider how Tiles/JSF 1.2 support will
be managed going forward under the MyFaces umbrella.
It has been my experience that to get
On Jan 4, 2008 8:40 PM, Gregg Leichtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I consider this important, since I use Tiles and I want to and currently
> am using JSF 1.2, since it resolves the interweaving problem among other
> things. Granted, I could potentially move to Clay, but I came from
> Struts an
. But we can not loose
more time on this.
It is a very important aspect to take care on when choosing a framework.
Esteve
-Mensaje original-
De: Greg Reddin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: lunes, 07 de enero de 2008 22:06
Para: dev@shale.apache.org
Asunto: Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale
De: Greg Reddin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enviado el: lunes, 07 de enero de 2008 22:06
> Para: dev@shale.apache.org
> Asunto: Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 8:40 PM, Gregg Leichtman wrote:
> >
> > I consider this important, since I use Tiles
Petrelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: martes, 08 de enero de 2008 17:54
Para: dev@shale.apache.org
Asunto: Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
2008/1/8, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I agree and that is why shale clay exists [1]. It has actually been
> around longer th
2008/1/8, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I agree and that is why shale clay exists [1]. It has actually been
> around longer than facelets but just didn't gain the same momentum
> :-(. You'll be happy to hear that JSF 2.0 is working on a templating
> solution that looks to be a clone of f
15 matches
Mail list logo
