Andrew Robinson schrieb:
I can see the point of that argument, but worry that putting heavy 3rd
party JS libraries into Tomahawk will steer people away from using it.
IMO, Dojo based components should either be (1) in a new MyFaces top
project, or in (2) a subproject of Tomahawk (i.e.
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
I can certainly live with dojo components being in an optional,
plug-in subproject of Tomahawk - they should then however use Tomahawk
infrastructure, the generator-environment and work together with its
components.
As I said moving over the generator is basically a
Hi Werner,
As for hosting another option would be to host
the project outside of apache until we
have moved everything over and then move it into the sandbox.
I am somewhat not really feeling well to drop it into the sandbox
as long as we dont have moved the old components over
we suddenly
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
Hi Werner,
As for hosting another option would be to host
the project outside of apache until we
have moved everything over and then move it into the sandbox.
I am somewhat not really feeling well to drop it into the sandbox
as long as we dont have moved the old
Hi!
Werner Punz schrieb:
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
In any case, I remain -1 to add a new component library - I am sorry.
Ok I am going to postpone this discussion until I can showcase something
then we can start it over...
Hmm ... was Martin's -1 a veto or did he just express his opinion.
Hi Mario,
I do not fancy YACL (yet another component library). Really not. There
is some cool stuff in Werner's proposal, and I think it might be nice
if it is carefully integrated into tomahawk without breaking the other
stuff that is there. I do strongly think that we cannot afford the
I can see the point of that argument, but worry that putting heavy 3rd
party JS libraries into Tomahawk will steer people away from using it.
IMO, Dojo based components should either be (1) in a new MyFaces top
project, or in (2) a subproject of Tomahawk (i.e.
myfaces-tomahawk-dojo).
#2 has its
I can certainly live with dojo components being in an optional,
plug-in subproject of Tomahawk - they should then however use Tomahawk
infrastructure, the generator-environment and work together with its
components.
regards,
Martin
On 7/10/08, Andrew Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see
.
From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:32 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Dojo discussion - opensourcing the jsf dojo components project
Hi!
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject
Hi,
2008/7/8 Andrew Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+1 to subproject
-1 to sandbox.
IMO, Dojo should be separated from Tomahawk
+1 for that, but if i understand Werner correct his current
implementation depends on tomahawk.
Regards,
Volker
and the sandbox is part of
Tomahawk, not a
PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Dojo discussion - opensourcing the jsf dojo components project
Hi!
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
+1 for own subproject.
Any further influence with tomahawk/sandbox needs to be avoided
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 21:52 +0200, Werner Punz wrote:
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
Hi all,
I am -1 for adding another sub-project.
Put this into the sandbox - and use the new code-generator, please,
and upgrade the existing dojo components to the 1.1 version -
everything else will
Hello everyone
as some know, I have been working semi silently the last months in my
opensource time on a jsf dojo layer which is rather extensive, it is a
thin layer on top of dojo currently encapsulating around 23-25 of the
existing dijit components
(around 98% of the dijit components)
I
No decision yet...
I would call it extensions, or something alike not really dojo
maybe we add other frameworks as well in the long run.
Werner
Ernst Fastl schrieb:
If moving to sandbox complicates the process a lot then maybe it would
be the better idea to, as you initially suggested, start
So my question is, are we going to host it inside of myfaces as its own
subproject or as part of the sandbox or maybe I can move the codebase over
to its own project outside of apache (jsfcomp for instance might be a
perfect place until the entire complib is matured enough)
since it was
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
So my question is, are we going to host it inside of myfaces as its own
subproject or as part of the sandbox or maybe I can move the codebase over
to its own project outside of apache (jsfcomp for instance might be a
perfect place until the entire complib is matured
Not sure if the development is outside of the apache community
the I wrote basically every single line of code so far myself.
but not under an Apache umbrella.
(Except for dojo)
The extensive table component which is pending, is a shared work
with all people involved having committer
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
Not sure if the development is outside of the apache community
the I wrote basically every single line of code so far myself.
but not under an Apache umbrella.
(Except for dojo)
The extensive table component which is pending, is a shared work
with all people
Well best probably is to ask there, but I dont think there should
be too much of a problem of getting it in directly without
having to go through the incubator, due to the nature of the code being
developed 100% by me.
I am fine with that. But I just want to make sure everything is fine
and
Yes, definitely incubator should be kept in the loop. But I feel a
Grant should be enough, if it is part of the sandbox.
regards,
Martin
On 7/7/08, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well best probably is to ask there, but I dont think there should
be too much of a problem of
Ok I dropped a mail in the incubator mailing list lets wait
for the answers.
Werner
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
Yes, definitely incubator should be kept in the loop. But I feel a
Grant should be enough, if it is part of the sandbox.
regards,
Martin
On 7/7/08, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL
It's great that people are thinking carefully about the right way to
handle this new code. But after some pondering, I'm happy for it to go
directly into a sandbox here and not through the incubator.
My reasons are:
Incubation is necessary when a brand-new project is created, in order to
be
Hi Simon,
On 7/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's great that people are thinking carefully about the right way to
handle this new code. But after some pondering, I'm happy for it to go
directly into a sandbox here and not through the incubator.
I would say so as well - a
Hi,
I think it is fine here. My main reason for the incubator list was
just b/c this project
was completely developed offline. So, it is (to me) a new project. That's all.
For me, a software grant would be pretty much enough.
-M
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
On [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russel (SUN)
agreed that a software grant is fine.
-M
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I think it is fine here. My main reason for the incubator list was
just b/c this project
was completely developed offline. So, it
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
On [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russel (SUN)
agreed that a software grant is fine.
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
Both options are fine for me, but with the sandbox I have to clearly
make comments in
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
On [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russel (SUN)
agreed that a software grant is fine.
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
+1 to its own
Hi!
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
+1 for own subproject.
Any further influence with tomahawk/sandbox needs to be avoided.
These two projects are still waiting for a overhaul themself.
Ciao,
Mario
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
+1 for own subproject.
+1 as well
-M
Any further influence with tomahawk/sandbox needs to be avoided.
These
+1 for a subproject as well.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:32 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Dojo discussion - opensourcing the jsf dojo components project
Hi!
Ok then those things are cleared up, now back to the original question
sandbox or own subproject?
+1 for own
31 matches
Mail list logo
