FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Apr 6, 2007 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vote] RCF proposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich
component library for JSF)
To: general@incubator.apache.org
The vote passes with 5 binding +1, 3 non-binding +1 an 1
Since I forwarded the email of Noel...
question I asked above: do we need a separate project and name for multiple
sets of Faces components? Are we keeping them separate, or eventually just
having a box of parts?
--- Noel
Personally, I don't think we need that. I think what
Hi,
Omar today mailed the proposal for further discussion to general list.
-M
-- Forwarded message --
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mar 22, 2007 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF
To: general@incubator.apache.org
On 3
(forwarded the wrong email before)
Hi,
Omar today mailed the proposal for further discussion to general list.
-M
-- Forwarded message --
From: Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mar 22, 2007 8:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF
-- Forwarded message --
From: Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mar 22, 2007 8:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Omar Tazi wrote:
This is a proposal to donate a rich component library for the JavaServer
Faces
+1
--Manfred
On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a vote on the
MyFaces PMC of being the Sponsoring Entity of that *podling*. After
finding
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a vote on the
MyFaces PMC of being the Sponsoring Entity of that *podling*. After
finding the sponsor, we move this *discussion* to the incubator
general list.
The
+1 for MyFaces being the sponsoring entity for RCF
On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a vote on the
MyFaces PMC of being the Sponsoring
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
+1 for MyFaces being the sponsoring entity for RCF
+1
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
+1 for MyFaces being the sponsoring entity for RCF
+1
Ciao,
Mario
+1 (non-binding)
Cagatay
On 3/19/07, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
+1 for MyFaces being the sponsoring entity for RCF
+1
Ciao,
Mario
+1
On 3/19/07, Cagatay Civici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
Cagatay
On 3/19/07, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
+1 for MyFaces being the sponsoring entity for RCF
+1
Ciao,
Mario
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF
+1
On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a vote on the
MyFaces PMC of being the Sponsoring Entity of that *podling*. After
finding the sponsor,
+1
On 3/19/07, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 3/19/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a vote on the
MyFaces PMC of being the
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a vote on the
MyFaces PMC of being the Sponsoring Entity of that *podling*. After
finding the sponsor, we
+1
On 19/03/07, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a vote on the
MyFaces PMC of being the Sponsoring Entity
+1
regards,
Martin
On 3/19/07, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 19/03/07, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned,
+1
Regards,
Volker
2007/3/19, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a vote on the
MyFaces PMC of being the Sponsoring Entity of that *podling*. After
finding
+1
Volker Weber wrote:
+1
Regards,
Volker
2007/3/19, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a vote on the
MyFaces PMC of being the Sponsoring Entity of that
+1
On 3/19/07, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
Volker Weber wrote:
+1
Regards,
Volker
2007/3/19, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
last week I sent out the proposal for the donation of RCF from Oracle
to the ASF. The proposal mentioned, that we need to do a
]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:48 AM
To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
Subject: Re: Trinidad, Tomahawk, Tobago, and RCF [Was:
[Proposal] RCF, a rich component library for JSF]
.
Getting people into component programming is hard, the api is
unnecessarily complicated and overloaded
.
Richard J. Barbalace
-Original Message-
From: Werner Punz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:48 AM
To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
Subject: Re: Trinidad, Tomahawk, Tobago, and RCF [Was:
[Proposal] RCF, a rich component library for JSF]
.
Getting people
until that is achieved.
Richard J. Barbalace
-Original Message-
From: Werner Punz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:48 AM
To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
Subject: Re: Trinidad, Tomahawk, Tobago, and RCF [Was:
[Proposal] RCF, a rich component library
Hi Martin!
I've already mentioned that with this addition, I see Trinidad as a
Top Level project rather than a sub-level project of MyFaces.
What do you think about that?
What about combining our efforts providing a modern component library?
Creating a myfaces commons and a cleaned-up
Hey Mario,
that would be a good idea, IMO.
The first step should be the long discussed myfaces-commons (Volker et al).
Such a *small* artifact, containing converters and validators for
instance, can also benefit from Trinidad's base in adding client side
conversion and validation support,
From: Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've already mentioned that with this addition, I see Trinidad as a
Top Level project rather than a sub-level project of MyFaces.
What do you think about that?
I agree that Trinidad should be a TLP. My argument for this would have more to
do
I think MyFaces will be the looser if we split due to the
interoperability question.
to me, MyFaces is the runtime, the impl. of the spec.
Tomahawk² would need a overhaul, and that is an interesting option to
use Trinidad stuff in here. There is no need to kick Tomahawk out.
Useful components
From what I've seen, I'd agree. Tomahawk has a few good
components, but I don't think our architecture is all that special.
However, I'd also like us to try to pick up whatever can be done to
work better with Tobago.
On 3/15/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for doing
Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
At some point we should discuss what an ideal JSF component framework
architecture looks like and whether it's feasible for all of our
components to be a part of such an architecture.
+1
the at some point probably is now, with the jsf 1.2 transition,
people
On 3/15/07, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From what I've seen, I'd agree. Tomahawk has a few good
components, but I don't think our architecture is all that special.
Yes, there are some really nice things. Scheduler for instance and
also in the sandbox.
There are some things in
From: Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Gary!
Tomahawk and Tobago have their own strategies too. Often they can
play nicely together, but since they don't standardize on a single API
for delivering these Web 2.0 features, they will never truly be
interoperable (IMHO).
I agree with the philosophy of making Trinidad the Base, and refactoring
Tomahawk into it. I've been using Seam a lot in my day job, and the
Seam-Trinidad compatibility is more stable than Seam-Tomahawk. A point of
contention with the Seam folks is the ExtentionsFilter, which they perceive
to be
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/15/07, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
From what I've seen, I'd agree. Tomahawk has a few good
components, but I don't think our architecture is all that special.
Yes, there are some really nice things. Scheduler for instance and
also in the
Still a huge first step would be a myfaces commons, containing stuff
like updateActionlistener and validators/converters.
On 3/15/07, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think that even moving the validators and converters out would be a
big step since they provide client side
Also one *target* should be getting rid of the extension filter and
use an approach like Trinidad document or Tobago's page, where the
components (their renderers) register themselfs and put out their
resources, like funny javascript.
also the common fileupload (done in Tobago Contrib, already).
I know very little about Trinidad, but if the primary purpose is to
provide javascript and stylesheets, then the document tag could just
be like any other tag and put into the HEAD section, yes? And
having multiple kinds of these tags should not be a conflict.
trinidadResourceProvider/
On 3/15/07, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One big concern I have is that we do not go to such an extreme (like
Tobago did) that we are no longer compatible with other component
sets. Once you start requiring a specific kind of form or document,
then you've just made yourself
Hi,
This is a proposal to donate a rich component library for JSF to the
Apache Software Foundation. The live version of the proposal is
available at
http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/RCF_Proposal.
Omar Tazi (Chief Open Source Evangelist at Oracle) and I have been
working on that proposal over the
One more note, form my side.
Here is a *viewlet*, a demo of some components, in case you like to get an idea:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jdev/viewlets/1013/richclient_viewlet_swf.html
Sure, that isn't a *documentation* but at least you can see something ...
;)
Thanks,
Matthias
In other news... Matthias Wessendorf has
dropped a bomb into the myfaces devel list...
This stuff is awesome.
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
One more note, form my side.
Here is a *viewlet*, a demo of some components, in case you like to get
an idea:
+1 add me to the list of initial committers...
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
One more note, form my side.
Here is a *viewlet*, a demo of some components, in case you like to get
an idea:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jdev/viewlets/1013/richclient_viewlet_swf.html
Sure,
There is a runtime dependency on the trinidad artifacts.
There is no special dependency to a specific JSF impl, only the
*plain* JSF API is used.
Greetings,
Matthias
On 3/14/07, Zdeněk Sochor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Matthias,
are there any RUNTIME dependencies for RFC on other SPECIFIC
Hi Matthias,
are there any RUNTIME dependencies for RFC on other SPECIFIC apache
JSF projects?
(like Tomahawk's and Impl's on shared)
It's not clear from proposal.
Btw, SWF demo looks pretty cool ;)
Regards,
Zdenek
Matthias Wessendorf napsal(a):
One more note, form my side.
Here is a
Zdeněk Sochor schrieb:
Hi Matthias,
are there any RUNTIME dependencies for RFC on other SPECIFIC apache JSF
projects?
(like Tomahawk's and Impl's on shared)
It's not clear from proposal.
Btw, SWF demo looks pretty cool ;)
Regards,
Zdenek
I assume it is a Trinidad extension.
Wow. Thanks to Jsf community efforts and Oracle business vision. I am
very keen to have a hand-on with these components under tomcat 6.
Duong BaTien
BudhNet and DBGROUPS
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:40 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Hi,
This is a proposal to donate a rich component library
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
This is a proposal to donate a rich component library for JSF to the
Apache Software Foundation. The live version of the proposal is
available at
http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/RCF_Proposal.
Omar Tazi (Chief Open Source Evangelist at
Hi,
I also want to be involved.
Cagatay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/14/07, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
This is a proposal to donate a rich component library for JSF to the
Apache Software Foundation. The live version of the proposal
Hello Matthias,
I would like to join as an initial commiter as well if possible.
Thanks,
~ Simon
On 3/14/07, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
This is a proposal to donate a rich component library for JSF to the
Apache Software
48 matches
Mail list logo
