myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Schofield <>
Subject Re: Tree2
Date Sun, 06 Mar 2005 16:51:46 GMT
> I don't know what was wrong with my post or with Sean's reply that
> caused you to write this message, but anyway I sign 99% of it's content.
> The 1% I can not follow completely is the point according interface
> changes. From my POV we have to be careful in changing existing
> components. If you are in the middle of a project you care about any
> change in a framework you are using. To say it's up to the user to
> update to a new MyFaces release or not is only half of the truth.
> Consider there is a bug in MyFaces which blocks an important feature of
> your application and which will be fixed in the next release. Where is
> your choice in this situation? As you urgently need the fix you have to
> update. And now consider that by updating to the next release you also
> get a a new tree/tabbed pane/navigation/... component which offers the
> same or better functionality as the old one but by using a different
> interface or programming model so that your existing code will break.
> You don't care about new and better functionality in this situation, you
> just want the fix to finish your project. So what would your opinion be
> in this situation. I suppose you would not be too happy the MyFaces
> developers force you to change a crucial part of your application?

The open source nature of MyFaces gives the user an additional choice.
 They could always build their own version of the jar and mix and
match functionality.  In fact, maybe we could provide a legacy tree
jarfile that would contain the old tree stuff to help users who didn't
want to upgrade right away?
> To make it short: there is no problem in changing components and their
> interfaces as long as the changes are small and straightforward and
> require only slight modifications by the user. In any other case we
> should continue to support the old component (by providing a legacy
> package for example).

I would argue that is precisely what is being proposed.  Straight
forward, relatively minor changes.  So you do agree that it ok to
change the interface in some circumstances then?  As long as you are
open to that idea then I think we can work something out that
satisifes everyone.  I will address your specific concerns in your
second email.
> Oliver


View raw message