Greg Reddin schrieb:
If this is turning into a vote we should specify what +1 and -1 means. Does
-1 mean "no, don't port it" or "no we have to have this"? :-)
I'd say a -1 means it will end up in an "MyFaces dormant" project. If we
agree having one at all.
Ciao,
Mario
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig
> McClanahan
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:18 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MyFaces
>
> PS: I feel the need to add a personal note here, just so everyone is
> a
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Savara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:15 PM
> To: dev@shale.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Merging Shale into MyFaces
>
> >but I'm having a hard time seeing benefits over Facelets and Clay.
>
> What I see as benefit for tiles is
For the record, Tiles does come up in conversation with shops that require
use of JSP.
~~~
Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral
> -Original Message-
> From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:33 PM
> To: 'dev@shale.apache.org'
> Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
>
> The spec develops over the time so even it's not finsihed we roughly
> know
> what will be in it,
The spec develops over the time so even it's not finsihed we roughly know
what will be in it, it's getting clearer when time moves on.
Maybe for the merger we don't have to set a hard dependency on JSF2, but it
doesn't make sense to me to migrate any features which are not needed
anymore in the nea
>From: "Pavel Savara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >but I'm having a hard time seeing benefits over Facelets and Clay.
>
> What I see as benefit for tiles is possibility to define another tiles.xml
> config which specify what page should be displayed for different locale. So
> you
> don't have onl
>but I'm having a hard time seeing benefits over Facelets and Clay.
What I see as benefit for tiles is possibility to define another tiles.xml
config which specify what page should be displayed for different locale. So you
don't have only localized messages and text but complete web page layout
I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or more away
~~~
Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaS
On 10/22/07, Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Tiles works with FreeMarker and Struts 2 too. And sincerely I think that
> it
> could be used for JSF users, if it only gets more support (don't look at
> me,
> I don't know anything about JSF :-) ).
It could be used, but I'm not sure
On 10/21/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > * Tiles Integration
> > > See Clay.
> >
> > +0 I'll abstain here and since I don't know much about the Tiles side of
> > things. Let's just say that I think Tiles integration should "just work"
> in
> > MyFaces and Shale.
>
> Like
On 10/21/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is one class[1] and despite what the shale-tiles pom[2] declares,
> it doesn't relate to/depend on any other parts of shale - just JSF and
> Tiles. So it could just as easily be moved to the tiles TLP. Having
> said that, I suggested
If this is turning into a vote we should specify what +1 and -1 means. Does
-1 mean "no, don't port it" or "no we have to have this"? :-)
Greg
On 10/21/07, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Application Controller
> > Don't know. I thought action oriented frameworks are outdated, th
On 10/22/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Ryan,
>
> nice to hear. Any "public" reference for that ?
Hi Matthias,
Unfortunately it's one of those private gov web sites. So you won't
really be able to get a feel for it. But it is a very large websphere
portal site. Of th
On 10/20/07, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I sent out an e-mail to the Shale mailing list a week or so ago about the
> possibility of merging Shale with MyFaces. Development of Shale has become
> somewhat stale, and I'd rather see MyFaces pickup the pieces than have the
> code base at
On 10/21/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > * Dialog Manager
> > > * Dialog Manager (Basic Implementation)
> > > * Dialog Manager (SCXML Implementation)
> > > The Dialog Manager might be a next step for MyFaces Orchestra. Anyway,
> > > I
> > > hope that one of
>From: Bernhard Slominski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
> So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting) should not move,
> but just stay in Shale.
> Also let's see where templating and component development g
Hi all,
I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting) should not move,
but just stay in Shale.
Also let's see where templating and component development goes before making
a decision about Clay.
So Shale is then the JSF
Hey Ryan,
nice to hear. Any "public" reference for that ?
-M
On 10/21/07, Ryan Wynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having worked with both together for the past year I think combining
> shale and myfaces would be a good thing. I have alot invested in
> both, my team having just finished a large p
2007/10/22, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > > * Tiles Integration
> > > See Clay.
> >
> > +0 I'll abstain here and since I don't know much about the Tiles side of
> > things. Let's just say that I think Tiles integration should "just work"
> in
> > MyFaces and Shale.
>
> Likely
20 matches
Mail list logo
