myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Cooper <mart...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Moving forward on the Oracle donation
Date Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:40:22 GMT
On 12/28/05, chemeia@gmail.com <chemeia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll pipe up from the peanut gallery here:
>
> One thing to consider is whether a distinction will be meaningful going
> forward.  So, if someone comes along with a new component they want to
> contribute, will it make sense for them to ask "should I put this in
> Tomahawk or X"?


This is an area that, IMHO, needs some serious thought from the MyFaces
team. My expectation is that the Oracle donation will include a
comprehensive framework around the specific library of widgets, and not just
a repository of independent widgets. My fervent hope is that the MyFaces
team will choose to integrate the existing MyFaces widgets with that
framework, instead of having multiple disjoint code bases.

This is especially important in the JavaScript arena. The last thing you
want is for MyFaces users to have to download duplicate functionality into
the browser because they happened to use widgets that required different
frameworks to support them. It's even worse when those widgets all came from
MyFaces.

Also, several of the existing MyFaces widgets are based on Prototype. This
*will* cause users problems when they deploy to a portal environment, or
when they try to use other libraries, or just other JavaScript code in their
pages. I've mentioned this before, but people don't seem to have taken this
seriously (or they just don't care, which I hope isn't the case!). Migrating
those widgets to use the Oracle framework, once it arrives, will almost
certainly resolve these issues.

--
Martin Cooper


Also -- will combining them cause confusion in people's minds?  My feeling
> is that few people know what Tomahawk means, so you can combine them without
> battling some preconcieved notion.
>
> Steve
>
> On 12/28/05, Glen Mazza <grm7790@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > Martin Marinschek wrote:
> >
> > >So what other suggestions are there for the naming of ADF-Faces?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I may be missing something here, but according to Ted the intention is
> > to incorporate Oracle's contribution into MyFaces, so any new name for
> > ADF is likely to be temporary only and not that important an issue.
> > Also, it doesn't appear Oracle's donation will ever move past incubation
> > status into its own project, because again it will be absorbed by
> > MyFaces, correct?
> >
> > Glen
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message