deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Kildén <karl.kil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DeltaSpike Roadmap
Date Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:11:42 GMT
Hello!

Another user here with my point of view. Very satisfied with deltaspike so
far. If someone would ask me when they can start using it and the obvious
answer is right now. Have many features released so far in production code
already and a big thumps up for a job well done.

*Roadmap:* I can't find any previous discussions about it. Before I
bandwagon getting one I would like to hear the reasons for not having one.
If someone can think of or recall issues lets hear it please.

Most wanted features for us: JSF-support no doubt. The scopes, type-safe
navigation and many other features. Having the windowId work a little
better with prettyfaces would be nice too if someone has a foot in that
project as well. After that DS-60 is something I will implement on day 0 as
well.

*Helping out*: I have poked around trying to sniff up work that suits me
(read simple enough :) but the "get involved" model is a little bit
difficult for me. I basically need someone to tell me what to do. If you
are experienced / in the know or w/e and want some help with a simple task
please announce it somehow! For example by pinging me in #deltaspike.
Regardless of that I will try harder to be of use.

Best regards / Karl


2013/3/25 titou10 titou10 <titou10.titou10@gmail.com>

> +1000 for the roadmap
> +1000 for a v0.4 with most of the JSF stuff there, at least the CODI scopes
>
> From our experience as migrating from Seam 2 to CDI, what we need ASAP:
> - porting all CODI scopes to DS (ViewAccesScope, WindowScope, various
> ConversationScope..) etc
> - "WindowScoped" must definitively go in the direction of what it will
> be in JSF 2.2..without JEE7
> - DS should also offer an equivalent to the Seam 2 "page scope"
>   It is exactly the same as the CDIfied JSF "ViewScope", but  tied to
> another annotation.  The JSF @ViewScope annotation can not be used on
> producer method. This is a major problem as we use the Seam 2 page
> context a lot. CODI ViewAccessScope is great, but too long/wide for
> this. The name "@PageScoped" could be used or maybe "@ViewCDIScoped"
> as this the same scope with another annotation
>
> We could argue that we can use CODI + DS but we would like to step out
> of CODI asap as CODI is (almost) not evolving anymore and we are
> starting new large project now. The sooner we use only DS the better,
> as we will not have to "refactor/retest/relaunch" without CODI after
> we launch in production. Also we can not use only CODI as some DS
> features are only in DS (eg @Transactional + JTA..)
>
> If we talk about roadmap, the following components we developped
> ourselves and packaged in a utility jars, could be good candidates to
> be in DS
> - I created a component to easily create all variations of faces
> messages based on the resource bundle. From omnifaces :
> http://showcase.omnifaces.org/utils/Messages . Maybe it already exists
> in DS but didn't find it...
> - a component to capture the rendering of the facelets engine in
> background: use case: produces a PDF document ans store in in the
> database, based on facelets tags like in Seam 2. I ported the pdf tags
> of Seam 2 (using itext) and my  "FaceleteRenderer" CDI component is
> based on
> http://www.bradchen.com/blog/2011/07/render-facelets-programmatically.
> Could be in another module in a DS v2.0 release.
> - An integration with Apache Shiro (to replace Seam 2 security), that
> allow application to provide their own Custom Realm, Custom
> authentifications and exposes @Subject to provides "hasRole()" etc...
> Could be in another module in a DS v2.0 release.
>
> Also, I know that it has already be discussed, but the hard wiring of
> DS to java.util.logging is a real pain for us and even if it may not
> be not a good time to discuss this again in the context on having a
> quick release, IMHO, if we talk about a roadmap, maybe it could be at
> least discussed again to introduce an abstract logging layer (slf4j..)
> at some point in the future for DS.. maybe j.u.l being the "default"
> concrete logger
>
> As for an EntityManager component: -1 for us as this is trivial to
> expose one, -1 also on JMS as this is trivial to do it in JEE6 (Yes,
> we use EJBs..) and for us this is not at all a prioority for DS. JSF
> scopes are!
>
> I'm also eager to help but on what?
> - on the code ? Until the scopes that will be in DS/JSF are not final
> and that the code is not in a stable state it is difficult for me..And
> we need a minimal doc on a clear direction where the each components
> in DS is going
> - on the doc and sample? Same problem. IMHO it is not that easy to
> read the (unfinished) code and write the doc from there...
>
> Thx.
> Denis Forveille
>
> 2013/3/25 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>:
> > They have it, it uses a little bit of javascript:
> >
> > http://www.primefaces.org/showcase/ui/requestContext.jsf
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Thomas Andraschko <
> > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Are you sure? PrimeFaces does not have one. I only know richfaces'
> >> graphValidator and it's IMO not that easy and cool as s:validateForm.
> >>
> >> 2013/3/25 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> > I believe all of the major JSF component libraries support some type
> of
> >> > form validation using BV.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Thomas Andraschko <
> >> > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Any news about s:validateForm?
> >> > > As i said, it's great feature of seam3 and would perfectly fit DS
> >> (IMO).
> >> > >
> >> > > I could also add it to DS if no one have enough time... :)
> >> > >
> >> > > 2012/12/17 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > > there is a reason why it is just an add-on ;)
> >> > > > and yes, if you would do it with the jsf2-api, it would be a
bit
> >> > easier.
> >> > > > but you can use this add-on also for jsf 1.x and some users who
> don't
> >> > > like
> >> > > > to use seam are happy with it.
> >> > > > however, i just mentioned it as an example to show that cdi isn't
> >> > needed
> >> > > to
> >> > > > implement such a functionality.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > regards,
> >> > > > gerhard
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2012/12/17 Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter@gmail.com>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Also, note that the use-cases for <s:validateForm>
and the
> latter
> >> > > example
> >> > > > > are different in their usage. IMO, <s:validateForm>
is much more
> >> > > > > declarative and simple than the example provided from extval.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Just write a validator and attach it like you would normal
to a
> >> > > component
> >> > > > > in the view, wherever you want to use it. You can also re-use
> >> > > > > form-validators using this method, instead of using some
(in my
> >> > > opinion)
> >> > > > > strange view-filtering logic in the FormValidator annotation.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > <s:validateForm> is/was one of the most well recieved
feature of
> >> Seam
> >> > > > > Faces, and I think it deserves serious consideration. Can
you do
> >> form
> >> > > > > validation other ways? absolutely, but this way is pretty
> >> compelling
> >> > > > based
> >> > > > > on the feedback we got. It also ties in very normally with
the
> way
> >> in
> >> > > > which
> >> > > > > JSF handles validation and components, which is not something
> that
> >> I
> >> > > can
> >> > > > > speak about with regard to extval, but I can say that seam
faces
> >> does
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > nicely.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ~Lincoln
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Thomas Andraschko <
> >> > > > > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Please do not mix both :)
> >> > > > > > We had the discussion about commons bv constrains.
> s:validateForm
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > completely different compared to bv constraints.
> >> > > > > > s:validateForm does not fit the project for common
bv
> >> constraints.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén <karl.kilden@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Looks really nice I understand finally :-)
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > In retrospect I don't know why I didn't check
the docs
> myself,
> >> > > > probably
> >> > > > > > > because I read most of the discussion on the phone
to begin
> >> with.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I then agree with the many suggestions regarding
doing it
> as a
> >> > > > parallel
> >> > > > > > > project. Perhaps that module could have a  sub
module for
> CDI
> >> > users
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > included producers and such.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Best regards / Karl
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > hi karl,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > it's implemented via a producer - see [1].
> >> > > > > > > > but you don't really need cdi for it - see
e.g. [2].
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > regards,
> >> > > > > > > > gerhard
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > [1] http://s.apache.org/ury
> >> > > > > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://os890.blogspot.co.at/2010/06/multi-field-form-validation-with-jsr.html
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
> >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > As far as i understand, validateAll
just validates all
> >> > > components
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > can't use custom logic.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Checkout the seam docu here:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://docs.jboss.org/seam/3/faces/latest/reference/en-US/html/components.html
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén <karl.kilden@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Hrmm still not sure I understand.
First off didn't
> Pete
> >> > just
> >> > > > say
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > was
> >> > > > > > > > > > just a JSF-validator? It also sounds
and reads just
> like
> >> > > > > > validateAll
> >> > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > > > omnifaces?
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > What is lacking that you would
like to see solved by
> CDI?
> >> > And
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > it a
> >> > > > > > > > > > natural fit for CDI extensions
rather then BV / JSF
> >> > > extensions?
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Best regards / Karl
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> andraschko.thomas@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > they are nice but i can't
see a replacement for
> >> > > > s:validateForm.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > IMO s:validateForm is really
a simple solution for
> >> > > > cross-field
> >> > > > > > > > > > validation,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > which is CDI based.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > THomas
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén <karl.kilden@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Well these are the validators
from omnifaces as
> per
> >> my
> >> > > > > previous
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > recommendation:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - RequiredCheckboxValidator<
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/RequiredCheckboxValidator.xhtml
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - validateAll<
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateAll.xhtml
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - validateAllOrNone<
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateAllOrNone.xhtml
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - validateEqual<
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateEqual.xhtml
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - validateOne<
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOne.xhtml
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - validateOneOrMore<
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOneOrMore.xhtml
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - validateOneOrNone<
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOneOrNone.xhtml
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - validateOrder<
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOrder.xhtml
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    - validateUnique
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateUnique.xhtml
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >Best
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >    regards / Karl
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas Andraschko
<
> >> > > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > PrimeFaces doesn't
have such a
> component/utility.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also AFAICS it's
based on CDI, so IMO DeltaSpike
> >> is a
> >> > > > good
> >> > > > > > > place
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > it.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Jason
Porter <
> lightguard.jp@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec
17, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Pete Muir <
> >> > > > > > pmuir@redhat.com
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 17
Dec 2012, at 08:55, Gerhard Petracek
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi
karl,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1
apache myfaces (extval) doesn't
> implement
> >> > jsr
> >> > > > 303
> >> > > > > > > (e.g.
> >> > > > > > > > > > apache
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bval
implements it)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2
there is no agreement that ds is only
> >> > backend
> >> > > > > > oriented
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gerhard
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17
Karl Kildén <
> >> karl.kilden@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
Hi Thomas, fellow user here.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
BV is as you may know specified in
> JSR-303.
> >> It
> >> > > has
> >> > > > > > great
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementations
by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
myfaces and hibernate that you can find
> >> > easily.
> >> > > > Thus
> >> > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
implemented in deltaspike afaik. However
> >> > > providing
> >> > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > common
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constraints
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
beyond the specification sounds like a
> good
> >> > > idea.
> >> > > > > Note
> >> > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
while @Email is almost trivial to
> implement
> >> > > > yourself
> >> > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > search
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
little. JSR-303 is highly extensible just
> >> like
> >> > > > CDI.
> >> > > > > > The
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
choose might have it as an extra already.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
For frontend extras I can't say I see an
> >> > obvious
> >> > > > > home
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > deltaspike
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
(someone correct me if I am wrong about
> >> this).
> >> > > > But I
> >> > > > > > > think
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > now
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
Deltaspike is more backend oriented. I
> >> > recommend
> >> > > > > > having
> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > look
> >> > > > > > > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > omnifaces
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
that already provide several great custom
> >> > > > > > jsf-validators
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > open
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
request for users to ask for additional
> >> ones.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
best regards / Karl
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
2012/12/16 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> > > > > > > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
Hi,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
is there a roadmap available for all
> >> upcoming
> >> > > > > > features?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
Will there also be a BV module in the
> >> future?
> >> > > > Will
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > also
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > include
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
commons constraints like Email?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, I
think this could be a good thing for
> a
> >> > > > parallel
> >> > > > > > > > project
> >> > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DeltaSpike
actually - a library of BV
> >> constraints
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > > > branded
> >> > > > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impl.
I've cc'd Emmanuel, spec lead for BV,
> to
> >> > see
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > he
> >> > > > > > > has
> >> > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > plans
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such a
thing.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
What about the Seam s:validateForm? IMO
> >> it's
> >> > a
> >> > > > > simple
> >> > > > > > > way
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > cross
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > field
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
validation. Will this be added in future
> >> > > > releases?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is
not actually a BV validator, but a
> JSF
> >> > > > > > validator. I
> >> > > > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Mark
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working
on JSF stuff for DeltaSpike atm,
> >> perhaps
> >> > > this
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > something
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could
add to that.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this something
that belongs in DeltaSpike,
> or
> >> > > should
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > JSF
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > component library?
I know RichFaces has
> something
> >> > > very
> >> > > > > > > > similar, I
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PrimeFaces
does as well (haven't looked for a
> >> > while)
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > > > > > > idea
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about other
component libraries.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
How can i contribue to DeltaSpike? I
> could
> >> do
> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > smaller
> >> > > > > > > > > > > tasks
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
problems.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
I also implemented constraints like
> >> > > > > > > > > > EqualsExpression("#{...}").
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
could be useful for other users, too.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This page
should help -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> http://deltaspike.staging.apache.org/deltaspike/community.html
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
Thomas
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason Porter
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Software Engineer
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Open Source
Advocate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP key id:
926CCFF5
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP key available
at: keyserver.net,
> pgp.mit.edu
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Lincoln Baxter, III
> >> > > > > http://ocpsoft.org
> >> > > > > "Simpler is better."
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message