This proposal might be a bit controversial...
I think we should make everything in tomahawk 100% RI compliant and
remove anything that is not. We've made (eroneous) claims in the past
that the stuff in the old components.jar will work with the RI but
there are several exceptions. I think we can
Woopa,
you are running into some controversion now ;)
tiles support should _not_ be dropped from anywhere, I use it in
several applications...
The only thing that is different in using tiles is the
JSPTilesViewHandler, and you can use it both with MyFaces and the
reference implementation,
+1 for making tomahawk 100% RI compliant
BUT
-1 for removing Tiles support - definitely!
Reason:
* Tiles support is one of the key features of MyFaces
* Tiles support should not (and is not AFAIK) RI incompatible
Where does it use MyFaces impl stuff? The special
JspTilesViewHandlerImpl does
Manfrd it uses
org.apache.myfaces.webapp.webxml.ServletMapping;
org.apache.myfaces.webapp.webxml.WebXml;
-Matthias
On 7/6/05, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for making tomahawk 100% RI compliant
BUT
-1 for removing Tiles support - definitely!
Reason:
* Tiles support is one
Remember, I like the Tiles support too (and said it was a key to my
discovering MyFaces)
;-)
So I'm not saying we remove it, but that we should consider removing
it *or* making it compatible with RI. It sounds like we have enough
support for keeping it so lets figurre out how to make it work
Sean,
did you also drop the WML stuff?
-Matthias
On 7/6/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This proposal might be a bit controversial...
I think we should make everything in tomahawk 100% RI compliant and
remove anything that is not. We've made (eroneous) claims in the past
that
User-wish:
yes: make tomahawk RI-compatible
but: keep JavaScript free as an option
thanks
Alexander
Matthias,
The WML stuff was only dropped temporarily so I could get the core
stuff working in the build. We can add it back but if it requires
MyFaces impl, I have the same concerns as with Tiles. (We can
probably rewrite it without too much problem though.)
Jesse,
I'm pretty sure some of the
ok ok ok...
sorry ... :)
On 7/6/05, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matze,
you are right - these depencies exist... but it looks as those classes
could wander into the shared class-set, they rather look like general
util classes.
regards,
Martin
On 7/6/05, Jesse
Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 07/06/2005 08:43:17 AM:
Woopa,
you are running into some controversion now ;)
tiles support should _not_ be dropped from anywhere, I use it in
several applications...
I agree. We need to keep Tiles support in.
Bryan
Great idea regarding moving the non-compliant Tamahawk components into
the sandbox. From my quick scan of open JIRA items, there are a few
that relate to conformance.
Sean Schofield wrote:
Remember, I like the Tiles support too (and said it was a key to my
discovering MyFaces)
;-)
So I'm
+1 (non-binding) on making sure all the components in Tomahawk work on
the RI (or, for that matter, any other JSF implementation. That's
part of the whole idea of a common API standard.
That being said, I'm not sure it's really as bleak a prospect as some
might be concerned about. In
12 matches
Mail list logo
