While we're on this subject, I think it's clear that combining the component suites might increase the available resources for moving things forward.. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I don't think there was a clear consensus... --- Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://twitter.com/kito99 http://twitter.com/jsfcentral http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info +1 203-404-4848 x3
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Andrew Robinson < andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes I agree with you. > > The architecture needs more documentation, especially there are some > really important API classes that have no JavaDoc at all. As for the > maven-faces-plugin, I really dislike it. It does a nice job, but it is > really hard to work with and modify (speaking from experience). There > has been some discussion to move Trinidad to the new annotation > builder plug-in, but I personally don't know the status of that and > the opinion of the Trinidad contributors of changing the process. > > Yeah, writing that WIKI gave me typer's cramp, it was the last straw > that pushed me to switch from QWERTY to the Dvorak keyboard layout, so > I agree that it should be more simple. FYI, I think that there are > maven archetypes out there that make it easier, but I am not 100% > certain there is an appropriate one. > > As for more components, it is hard to write something that has no > ideas. No one has put any effort into suggesting, working on or > submitting new components to the Trinidad sandbox. So basically, if > there is no demand for specific components, why spend your own > personal time writing them and trying to guess what people want? > > Skinning is a lot of work and I started one skin, but I lost my > motivation, but I think there is some that are working on one (search > the dev@ archives). > > One problem I find with working with Trinidad is still supporting IE6 > which makes life extremely miserable. The JS layer needs some major > refactoring (like no global functions and using a trinidad namespace > for all JS code for example) as well that makes any JS involved > component be more work than it should be. > > Oracle still puts a lot of effort in Trinidad support and it still > uses Trinidad as a base for the rich client framework (if you want to > see the public demo, you can surf here: > http://jdevadf.oracle.com/adf-richclient-demo/faces/index.jspx) so > that is the primary reason that Trinidad's core framework is > constantly worked on, but since Oracle has their own renderers for > these components, there isn't the same focus on the Trinidad renderers > as there is on the framework. > > Like all open source projects, there has to be a good user and > contributor community for it to truly prosper. Should people work on > new sandbox components and volunteer and start submitting patches for > the skin framework, progress would be seen. > > As for how to contribute, it is as simple as creating JIRA tickets at > http://issues.apache.org and submitting patches. If a patch seems to > be growing old, then it is typical to ping the users@ or dev@ mailing > list requesting someone to look into it. It helps if there is adequate > comments. For any API changes, it is always best to discuss the change > on the dev@ mailing list. Before I became a committer I just helped > out on the mailing lists and submitted patches, it really is not too > difficult to get involved if the desire is there. > > -Andrew > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Luka Surija<luka.sur...@iytim.hr> wrote: > > Andrew, > > it's always the same reason. > > Trinidad is too complicated do extend without strong knowledge: > > 1. in it's architecture isn't well documented > > 2. in maven-faces-plugin > > > > I'm familiar with your wiki page ( > > > http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Facelets_and_JSF_1.1_maven-faces-plugin_Getting_started > > ) but, as you can see it takes too much effort to make a simple hello > world > > component and I think this is a main reason why there is almost no new > > components in last 2 years. I'm using trinidad since m1-incubating > version > > and I'm tracking all the changes. In my opinion trinidad is potentialy > > "the" best jsf framework currently available, but it lacks some > features > > to make it the best: > > 1. More components > > 2. easier component development > > 3. new AJAX under-layer to track component changes (to allow push > technology > > one day). See ICEFaces as a example how to make a framework so popular > with > > this technology. But in the background it lacks so many thing and nobody > > cares. I've tried ICEFaces, and for "hello world" application is ok, but > for > > anything more complex, trinidad is 100x better and more developer > friendly + > > has better browser compatibility. > > 4. wow skin to make him more attractive. > > > > I'm sure that many trinidad users (developers) are willing to contribute > to > > the community starting from my self if they knew how to do it in some > > easier way. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Luka Surija > > > > +385 1 61 99 140 > > +385 98 434 061 > > l...@iytim.hr > > > > I.Y. tim d.o.o. > > Vrbik 3, HR-10000 Zagreb > > www.iytim.hr > > i...@iytim.hr > > > > > > > > Andrew Robinson wrote: > >> > >> I would not jump to just saying "that's totally wrong ..." when there > >> is truth to the observation. I cannot speak for Tobago, but there are > >> areas of Trinidad that have not significantly changed in years. This > >> may give the impression that there is not much ongoing development. > >> What you find with Trinidad is that the server side framework is very > >> well supported, as well as the components classes, but the Renderers, > >> skins and JavaScript of Trinidad are very much neglected. > >> > >> This is probably a result of many that extend Trinidad but do not > >> necessarily contribute those extensions back. There is a Trinidad > >> Sandbox, but unlike Tomahawk, there is no activity in it for the most > >> part. I am not sure why this is and what we can do to motivate our > >> users to provide new components and enhancements to existing > >> components. > >> > >> So as a result, you will probably find that Trinidad is very solid, > >> the server side keeps up to date with other libraries and with some > >> new JSF technologies and there is a great community of support at the > >> framework level. Just what is lacking is active support of the > >> component offerings and the look and feel of Trinidad. > >> > >> As Apache relies on its users quite a bit, new patches, and new > >> components are welcome, especially for the sandbox as it is a great > >> testing ground for new ideas without having to perform all the > >> architectural discussions up front. Then components can be brought > >> into the core as they gain popularity and their architecture can be > >> standardized if not already. > >> > >> -Andrew > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Christian Groove > >>> <groo...@groovesytems.de> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Salut > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi All, > >>>>> > >>>>> We are developing a web application with myfaces. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> That's fine, JSF is the cool think. I worked with > >>>> Tobago, that comes with a great layout manager > >>>> and some cool widgets. > >>>> > >>>> It is not my intention to overwhelm that nice > >>>> project but it seems to be dead. The development > >>>> > >>> > >>> that's totally wrong ... > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> of new widgets seems not to proceed so you may > >>>> better look to other Taglibs like Richfaces, Icefaces. > >>>> > >>>> Groovy > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This application needs proper navigation and UI .I have observed > >>>>> Trinidad > >>>>> has good navigation practices and other utilities.Tobago has some > good > >>>>> layouts but not good navigation practices.both these technologies > have > >>>>> featurs like PPR. > >>>>> > >>>>> could some one plaese advice us which is the better technology and > the > >>>>> distinct features of these technologies. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Srikanth > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Matthias Wessendorf > >>> > >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > >
