myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Aranda <brunoara...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [proposal] myfaces-core.jar
Date Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:57:32 GMT
If we split the components, we will need another prefix for
myfaces-core ('ft', 'f' from the standard core and 't' from tomahawk)?
I see many decisions in this thread now :-) So I also think that we
should avoid the name myfaces-core.

Regards,

Bruno



2005/11/30, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>:
> +1 for a separate jar.
>
> It's a good point that tomahawk should be split, just like jsf/core
> and jsf/html are split out.  All of the validators, converters, and
> non-rendering components probably should go into tomahawk-core :)
> [Guess we probably better not use myfaces-core, but like Bill said, I
> don't care what name gets used.   None of them sound appealing so
> far).
>
> On 11/30/05, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com> wrote:
> > First:
> >
> > my +1 for a separate jar, and myfaces-share or myfaces-commons.jar as
> > name - I don't mind either, I don't like core, though.
> >
> > @Volker:
> >
> > That's an interesting question.
> >
> > We might need to split up the components into two groups, and create a
> > new component pack name for render independent components - I wouldn't
> > put them into core or commons, whatever the name might be. We could be
> > creative again ;)
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 11/30/05, Volker Weber <users.myfaces@weber-oldenburg.de> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > in my oppinion a jar for the shared files is the best way, but before
> > > fixing a name: I think there could be a need for another jar.
> > >
> > > There are some components in towmahawk.jar which also could be usefull
> > > in combination with tobago. E.g. i don't like depend on towmahawk.jar
> > > just to use t:saveState or t:aliasBean. Because of differend renderkid
> > > ids it is not possible to mix tobago and towmahawk components. But i
> > > like the option to use render independend components also with tobago.
> > >
> > > Could we put those components into the 'core', or however, jar ? Or
> > > should we create a own artifact for those components? If so we should
> > > think about this name here also.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > >   Volker
> > >
> > > Bill Dudney wrote:
> > > > +1 on the structural change
> > > > +0 on name change either way -  An argument can be made for any of  the
> > > > 3 proposed names (share, core or commons) so I'm open to any of  them
> > > > and let those with passion on one of the 3 sort it out ;-)
> > > >
> > > > TTFN,
> > > >
> > > > -bd-
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 30, 2005, at 1:10 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 2005/11/30, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I wanted to resurrect one of our favorite threads ... "Should
the
> > > >>> shared code be in its own jar?"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The reason why I bring this up now is that I'm starting to experiment
> > > >>> with an M2 build for MyFaces.  In addition to some of the arguments
> > > >>> made earlier we can now add Maven to the list of reasons why we
might
> > > >>> want to consider this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> From my early exploration of Maven it seems like the shared stuff
can
> > > >>> be handled best by making the impl and tomahawk subprojects have
a
> > > >>> dependency on the share project.  In the past I have not been
too  wild
> > > >>> about the shared jar idea but I think Maven may be able to help
keep
> > > >>> us and our users informed as to the exact dependencies when using
> > > >>> MyFaces or Tomahawk.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> First off, I would suggest we call it *core* instead of share.
 I
> > > >>> think "core" helps to imply that it is mandatory.  They already
know
> > > >>> they need api and impl (if they have read the JSF spec.)  The
"core"
> > > >>> wording will let them know they need this also.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Maven has some cool stuff for maintaining and documenting
> > > >>> dependencies.  The tomahawk page of the website can automatically
be
> > > >>> updated so that for each new release of tomahawk, the dependency
list
> > > >>> will be updated.  Its also possible that we can have tomahawk
depend
> > > >>> on an earlier version of the core then the impl.  So we can compile
> > > >>> against older versions that might be in the third party J2EE distros
> > > >>> (like JBoss).  Anyways, the point is that Maven may finally provide
> > > >>> the best solution to this problem so far.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> This confirms my feelings that I always had. Although I nearly know
> > > >> nothing about Maven I start to like it  ;-)
> > > >> My definite
> > > >> +1 on having a separate jar with all the stuff from the share dir
> > > >>
> > > >> Regarding the name: I agree that "share" might not be the best of
all
> > > >> names for the end user jar. Although - from a source code view - this
> > > >> name perfectly describes what it stands for and how the code is used.
> > > >>
> > > >> Having said that I'm not too happy with "core" as an alternative name.
> > > >> -0.5 on "core", because:
> > > >> As I understand it, the core of a software product is the part where
> > > >> all strings are tied up and the basic processing is done. The core
of
> > > >> MyFaces sits in Impl and API. FacesServlet, UIComponentBase and
> > > >> UIComponentTag are those classes that come to my mind when I think
of
> > > >> the "core".
> > > >> The shared classes are a loosely coupled set of utilities, helpers
and
> > > >> convenient base classes. Think of it as kind of commons classes for
> > > >> JSF. Not having doublechecked this yet, I have the feeling that most
> > > >> classes of our shared code are even compatible to foreign
> > > >> implementations (RI). So, why not give it a life of its own and head
> > > >> for that "commons" direction? So, my proposal is to call it
> > > >> "myfaces-commons.jar" in the meantime while heading for
> > > >> "commons-jsf.jar" in the long run - after having coordinated this
with
> > > >> Apache  Jakarta Commons guys, of course. We already have some good
> > > >> connections to the Jakarta team, right?
> > > >> Yes, sure, comparing our code to Jakarta Commons quality (javadoc
in
> > > >> particular), this might be a long and cumbersome path...  ;-)
> > > >>
> > > >> What do you think?
> > > >>
> > > >> Manfred
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Don't answer to From: address!
> > > Mail to this account are droped if not recieved via mailinglist.
> > > To contact me direct create the mail address by
> > > concatenating my forename to my senders domain.
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>

Mime
View raw message