> -Original Message-
> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 12:12 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: shale-test location (was RE: JSF 2.0 component set)
>
> Yeah, the conversation has already gone on longer then I
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'MyFaces Development'; 'Gary VanMatre'
> Subject: Re: shale-test location (was RE: JSF 2.0 componen
se.
What do others think (especially Gary)?
Kito D. Mann wrote:
*From:* Gary VanMatre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:16 AM
*To:* MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'MyFaces Development'
*Cc:* Kito D. Mann
*Subject:* RE: JSF 2.0 component set
good case.
What do others think (especially Gary)?
Kito D. Mann wrote:
*From:* Gary VanMatre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:16 AM
*To:* MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'MyFaces Development'
*Cc:* Kito D. Mann
*Subject:* RE: JSF 2
have a good case.
What do others think (especially Gary)?
Kito D. Mann wrote:
*From:* Gary VanMatre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:16 AM
*To:* MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'MyFaces Development'
*Cc:* Kito D. Mann
*Subject:* RE: JSF 2
> >> code
> >>
> >>> base :-).
> >>>
> >>> The shale's test library is one of the few that have not been
> >>> reinvented over and over and that seemed to be where the root
> >>>
> >> int
t; Kito D. Mann wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:21 PM
> >> To: MyFaces Development
> >> Cc: 'Gary VanMatre'
> >> Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 compo
nMatre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:16 AM
*To:* MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'MyFaces Development'
*Cc:* Kito D. Mann
*Subject:* RE: JSF 2.0 component set
From: "Kito D. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I just want to add that whe
Kito - ShaleTest is already JSF 1.2
Scott
Kito D. Mann wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:21 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Cc: 'Gary VanMatre'
Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
I foresee an ex
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:21 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Cc: 'Gary VanMatre'
> Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
>
> I foresee an exact copy of the functionality outl
ces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'MyFaces Development'
*Cc:* Kito D. Mann
*Subject:* RE: JSF 2.0 component set
>From: "Kito D. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I just want to add that when we were talking about moving Shale over to
> MyFaces, people were worried ab
From: Gary VanMatre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:16 AM
To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'MyFaces Development'
Cc: Kito D. Mann
Subject: RE: JSF 2.0 component set
>From: "Kito D. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I
gt;
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:39 PM
> > To: MyFaces Development
> > Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
> >
> > Bruno, I totally agree, but we don'
> You're absolutely right that it can happen if enough people are
> interested in doing it. That's what OSS is all about. And if
> it happens,
> that would be great.
This is the main target for my initial post: check whether enough
interested developers could be found.
> My comment is just about
Cool, yay.. Not only can the bridge use it for some testing, but I've
got a commons project I'd like to use it with. Not to mention Trinidad.
I wouldn't argue if you guys wanted to move shale-test over though. :)
The Bridge needs something similar to support testing of portlet JSF
functionalit
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:07 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
>
> That is a good point and this is even worse. Shale not only has an
> existing co
31, 2008 4:39 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
Bruno, I totally agree, but we don't want a lot of dead projects out
there either. My point, and I think Simon's as well, is that much
of
the contributions to the MyFaces Projects and renderkits comes from
comp
ax: +1 203-653-2988
-Original Message-
From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:39 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
Bruno, I totally agree, but we don't want a lot of dead projects out
there either. My point,
Message-
> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:39 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
>
> Bruno, I totally agree, but we don't want a lot of dead projects out
> there either. My point, and I think
This was in my last letter I sent (sorry about the muti-threading, I
just got on a kick and can't seem to stop), I think you're looking at a
separate project through incubator which would, eventually, move into
MyFaces once it's ready.
The nice thing about incubator is that it's built around c
Whether it is done by updating one of the existing projects to 2.0 first
and then enhancing it with the additional functions or by starting from
scratch, I think that it is a good idea to get one solid component set
for JSF 2.0 that would consolidate the requirements that are currently
addresse
Bruno, I totally agree, but we don't want a lot of dead projects out
there either. My point, and I think Simon's as well, is that much of
the contributions to the MyFaces Projects and renderkits comes from
companies and individuals who have a vested interest in supporting the
existing renderki
You beat me to it.. :)
simon wrote:
You're absolutely right that it can happen if enough people are
interested in doing it. That's what OSS is all about. And if it happens,
that would be great.
My comment is just about what is *likely* to happen without any sudden
new inflow of volunteers. The
You're absolutely right that it can happen if enough people are
interested in doing it. That's what OSS is all about. And if it happens,
that would be great.
My comment is just about what is *likely* to happen without any sudden
new inflow of volunteers. The original poster suggested it would be a
I don't see why not we could start a new component set for jsf 2.0 if there
is enough interest within the developers and users. This is a community
thing and if people worked heavily in such a project and the result was
good, I don't see why it should not exist. If others want to maintain
Trinidad
I would still echo sentiments that it would be most helpful to start
from an existing project. There are so many issues and requirements
that the existing renderkits have had years to work out, I think it
would be a much better starting point. Encouraging people to move off
of their existing
Tomahawk certainly does need a radical refresh. It's got some useful
stuff, but is very ugly internally.
There is slow work going on at the moment on something called the
myfaces "commons projects" (or some similar name). The idea is to split
up tomahawk into about 4 different pieces. At the same
Jesse Alexander (KSFH 323) wrote:
I am wondering whether the event of JSF 2.0 would not be a good
moment to create a new component set.
I'd like to chime in here with my +1.
I imagine maintaining three separate-but-similar component sets is quite
a bit of work and, from what I can tell with
Well Trinidad is not an Oracle product, it's an Apache product.
Nonetheless, I imagine it would be a good bet that Oracle would want to
continue to support Trinidad going forward. That said, there is no
reason that someone couldn't start a new renderkit. The code is
open-sourced. I just don
+0
While I see the merit of starting over (and certainly wouldn't argue
against a new component set based off of 2.0), I don't think we should
abadon/restrict renderkits from continuing to support emerging
standards. I know that many of the folks on Trinidad are interested in
supporting 2.0
Hi!
> Now it would be possible to update each component set to JSF 2.0...
> but a Tomahawk/JSF2 is "expected" to be backward compatible. So it
> would be difficult to radically change components or eliminate some
> duplicates...
>
+1
I'd like to see this too, though, I think Oracle wouldn't giv
31 matches
Mail list logo
