myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Schofield <sean.schofi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [proosal] Changes to sandbox
Date Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:52:04 GMT
Bill,

We need to get it it out of myfaces-all.jar if we don't want to mix
the faces-config.xml with tomahawk and sandbox stuff (which IMO we
don't want to do.)

sean


On 9/26/05, Bill Dudney <bdudney@mac.com> wrote:
> +1 on the proposal as outlined by Sean here.
>
> I don't agree that its that important to get sandbox out of myfaces-
> all people would know the difference with a separate tld but I'm also
> fine with leaving it as a separate jar file.
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
> On Sep 26, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
>
> > Let's make sure we are on the same page here (some stuff I read in
> > Sylvain's reply leads me to believe we are interpreting Martin's
> > suggestion differently.)
> >
> > Here is a new proposal ...
> >
> > 1.) Remove any reference to sandbox from myfaces-all.jar.  Zero traces
> > of sandbox in myfaces-all.jar.  This means no faces-config, no TLD
> > (including the all TLD) and no class files.
> >
> > 2.) Include sandbox.jar in both the nightly and release builds.  This
> > means that there will be no more "-Dskip.sandbox=true" and that the
> > sandbox directories will always be available when building.  The
> > sandbox.jar will contain its own TLD and class files.
> >
> > That's how I understood Martin's proposal.  Either way this is what I
> > am proposing now.  I am prepared to compromise by including sandbox
> > stuff in the distro but my position is that it should not be part of
> > all and that we shouldn't sandbox stuff in with the TLD or
> > faces-config.xml for tomahawk.
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 9/26/05, Sylvain Vieujot <svieujot@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>  One more thing about those TLDs.
> >>
> >>  I find that having one big tld for each project is quite bad, as
> >> it's hard
> >> to read and to maintain. It also promotes commit conflicts when 2
> >> developer
> >> are working concurrently on different components.
> >>  Maybe a better approach would be to have tld snipsets in each
> >> component's
> >> directory, and to generate each tld in the build process.
> >>
> >>  Any thoughts about this ?
> >>
> >>  Sylvain.
> >>
> >>
> >>  On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 14:57 -0400, Sylvain Vieujot wrote:
> >>
> >>  I too think it makes sens to release the sandbox into the myfaces-
> >> all.jar.
> >>
> >>  But if we do that, then this jar needs to contain a faces-
> >> config.xml that
> >> merges the ones from tomahawk & from the sandbox (build file,
> >> merge-sandbox
> >> target).
> >>  The process for merging the faces-config.xml files & the tld is
> >> basically
> >> the same. That's why I think of it as a logical step.
> >>  I don't see how removing it will improve the code.
> >>  I didn't knew we would keep the tld fragments in the sandbox's
> >> tld once
> >> they are promoted to tomahawk, and that was the main idea behind
> >> the "all
> >> tld".
> >>  But, are we sure it's the good solution to keep old components
> >> forever in
> >> the sanbox tld. It'll be increasingly hard to maintain and to keep
> >> synchronized with the one of tomahawk.
> >>  So, I prefer the path of having an all in one tld, but to clearly
> >> mark it
> >> as unstable as it contains sandbox's components.
> >>
> >>  Sylvain.
> >>
> >>  On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 12:12 -0600, Bill Dudney wrote:
> >>  I like this approach too. sandbox.jar is separate but part of the
> >> release.
> >>
> >> I'm equally OK with putting the sandbox stuff into the myfaces-
> >> all.jar with a separate tld (i.e. don't do the 'all' tld). Users wont
> >> be confused because its in a separate tld.
> >>
> >> I don't agree that its a lazy/not lazy thing, its just simpler to
> >> have one jar file with the whole thing instead of multiple.
> >>
> >> TTFN,
> >>
> >> -bd-
> >>
> >> On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Issue 2: making an exception for sandbox in the build:
> >>>>
> >>>> @Sean: Still, I think we shouldn't make an exception to the
> >>>> build for
> >>>> the sandbox.jar when releasing - I'd say we just release it as
> >>>> well,
> >>>> clearly indicating that this is experimental stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I might be persuaded to accept this route. It would certainly be
> >>> easier (we wouldn't have to worry about skipping the sandbox.)
> >>>
> >>> So we would get rid of myfaces all TLD and *not* include sandbox in
> >>> myfaces-all.jar right? Everything would be in sandbox.jar and thar
> >>> jar would be available in both the nightly and release builds?
> >>>
> >>> Is that what you are proposing?
> >>>
> >>> sean
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message