As someone who mostly just lurks on the dev list, I did want to comment on
Werner's post. I would be very interested in component programming, and I have
a fair number of ideas for what I think would make useful and interesting
components. (Wouldn't it be nice to have a Google Maps component,
I would like two different TLPs:
1. MyFaces Implementation (keeps progressing with the specification's
maturity).
2. JSF Component Libraries (whatever their names will be in the
future) which work with Sun MyFaces Implementations. Not one. But both. If
they only work with MyFaces then there is
-1 on two TLPs
IMO there shouldn't a release of any comp. lib, working only w/ one IMPL
Perhaps Tomahawk is to much depending on MyFaces (shared).
Trinidad works w/ both. For Tomahawk² we should change the strategy,
and use Trin. as the *core* / base ...
-M
On 3/16/07, Zubin Wadia [EMAIL
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
