Craig, > From my perspective, the MyFaces "movement" was started with the sole > focus of creating a compatible implementation of the JavaServer Faces > Specification (which is a good thing :-) -- and which is not done yet > :-(). The idea that someone might be interested in a set of JSF
well, we asked serval times -in sourceforce timeframe also inside of ASF, but no access to TCK for now. That is the reason for beeing a *beta* or milestone (like Geronimo folks call their product) release. Perhaps it takes some time, to be a certified JSF impl. > components". I personally view Shale as a logical successor to Struts > 1.x, and it would not have been fair for me to host it anywhere other > than the Struts community, if they were willing to accept it (which > they were). The other committers haven't bought in to the "logical > successor" part of this yet, but give 'em time :-). you are right! Struts is a framework to leverage *plain JSP and Servlet* based web development. And Shale is also a framework. That is equal. Both a frameworks to leverage a (different) technology. > In the interim and even if my view ultimately prevails, I do *not* see > Shale as a place where lots of generic JSF components live. Indeed, > the only components that *must* live there should be ones that rely on > Shale infrastructure. Generic JSF libraries can be happily integrated Sure! Shale is a framework and not a component suite. The ViewController interface e.g. makes sence there. Also the dialog stuff. But something like Validators or Tiles stuff (ViewHandler, NavigationHandler) are better placed in a generic JSF component suite (IMHO). > with Shale courtesy of the JSF standards; we don't need to invent any > of those, or pretend that there is such a thing as a "Shale tree > control" or whatnot. I agree ;) > That being said, it doesn't seem unlikely to me that there will be > technologies (such as Commons Validator) that make sense to have > integrations directly with a webapp framework, and a looser > integration with generic JSF. That's fine -- and it makes sense to > have both approaches supported because the use cases and the audiences > are different. (Indeed, this is why I'm going to work on a Spring Web > Flow -- JSF integration library, if I'd ever get to stop working > insane hours :-), separate from what's already in Shale; different > folks have different needs and different levels of technical > sophistication.) > Don't assume that the optimum number of implementations of any > particular idea is *one*. That's too simplistic to cover the needs of > all the developers out there. > > Don't assume that the existence of support for technology X in Shale > means that I would oppose an implementation of the same technology > purely based on JSF. Indeed, if you ask, I'll be happy to give you > the benefit of our experiences. fine! Since you (and other Struts/Apache committers) are poping up here time by time. We still learn from your experiences. Matthias > But, in the long run, I'll bet the background I have in web app > frameworks gives me a head start in understanding what people might > want of a web app framework that presumes JSF exists :-). > > Craig > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 5/26/05, IdRatherBeSailing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Shale and MyFaces are two entirely different > > > projects > > > > started by two entirely different groups of people. > > > > The only thing they have in common in JSF. > > > > > > Agreed completely. And MyFaces Extensions is a set of > > > extensions to core JSF that should work on any JSF > > > according to its description. > > > > > > > If you like the commons validator stuff for JSF then > > > > you are going to have to end up using Shale. > > > > > > That's a non-starter. While JSF and Struts are > > > already accepted by the market, customers and mgmt, > > > Shale is still too new (near zero market share, still > > > under early development not release...). While I'd > > > love to start playing with Shale, it's not going to > > > make into my or my customers' deployed apps anytime > > > soon, while JSF and common JSF extension tags (like > > > MyFaces Extensions) could. > > > > > > > One thing I can say for 100% sure is that there is > > > > no point in MyFaces adding something that is > > > > already available in Shale. > > > > > > Completely disagree with you on that one. Adding > > > something shale-specific to MyFaces makes no sense. > > > Adding a JSF tag(s) that would be of use to all users > > > of any JSF (since JSF validators ootb leave a bit to > > > be desired) across all JSF implementations (JSF is > > > supposed to be a standard, so apps you build with JSF > > > should run on all JSF impls where possible) to MyFaces > > > Extensions (not MyFaces core) makes complete sense. > > > > > > If Shale had an extension library that had useful JSF > > > tags that could be used across all JSF > > > implementations, then I could see your point. But > > > Shale is a new framework that's not yet done and it > > > has now embedded these useful-across-the-JSF-board > > > tags within the Shale Core such that you couldn't use > > > them without including the Shale core in your app. > > > > > > Struts didn't include commons-validator within Struts > > > core, it's a separate subproject so that it could be > > > used across other projects that had similar needs. > > > > > > > Shale is new techonology but then again so is > > > > MyFaces and JSF for that matter. > > > > > > JSF is shipping in several commercial IDEs already, > > > and thus has market and mindshare. Shale, while cool > > > and interesting does not yet have that luxury. I > > > hope that it does at some point, but I would still > > > like to see generally useful JSF tags included in the > > > JSF project extensions not in a superset framework > > > project. > > > > > > Thanks, and I know these questions are more oriented > > > toward Craig and David than you and the MyFaces PMC, > > > but I was hoping someone on the MyFaces Extensions > > > contributor team would offer to add this functionality > > > to the MyFaces extensions (at which point Craig and > > > David could decide whether to keep their own copy in > > > the Shale "core" or to depend on the MyFaces > > > extensions like other JSF apps and JSF supersets > > > could). > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf
