Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 51002 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2005 21:30:07 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Dec 2005 21:30:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 3118 invoked by uid 500); 28 Dec 2005 21:30:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 3103 invoked by uid 500); 28 Dec 2005 21:30:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@myfaces.apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for dev@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 57072 invoked by uid 99); 28 Dec 2005 20:40:44 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of mfncooper@gmail.com designates 64.233.162.197 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=kD/Jz88QLqHO1ykWFUNJNtdhUZe/QSnNEFNPcJMDx479WQdlnjQcRVIwy2cWoUW2e/GnNnbdWjMfzJr8n8S69g2UmkSEnzfWVA6+ExVHQV5SzG0YnS/vggiPJJQ38B3FJIItyWdiuO7umHT9YF8fMcBVYt70zy1L+Me54qGM90Y= Message-ID: <16d6c6200512281240k984af68s48cd4199e2332a06@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:40:22 -0800 From: Martin Cooper Sender: mfncooper@gmail.com To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Moving forward on the Oracle donation In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_69687_30106949.1135802422142" References: <8b3ce3790512261646m9b54167ud67fff4924be5ffb@mail.gmail.com> <5a99335f0512281011s7210bbf5uf293ddf060dc00bd@mail.gmail.com> <43B2E395.80601@verizon.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_69687_30106949.1135802422142 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/28/05, 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 jus= t 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 fro= m 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 thei= r 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!). Migratin= g 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 with= out > battling some preconcieved notion. > > Steve > > On 12/28/05, Glen Mazza 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 incubatio= n > > status into its own project, because again it will be absorbed by > > MyFaces, correct? > > > > Glen > > > > > > > ------=_Part_69687_30106949.1135802422142 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

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.

Stev= e


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 s= omething here, but according to Ted the intention is
to incorporate Orac= le'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 incubationstatus into its own project, because again it will be absorbed by
MyFaces, correct?

Glen




------=_Part_69687_30106949.1135802422142--