myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <skitch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Refactor Commons to org.apache.myfaces.commons ?
Date Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:33:44 GMT
Hi All,

I'm personally not in favour of releasing commons at all.
I think the correct solution is to have a build step that automatically
changes the package-name of the commons classes and builds it into the
real project being built.

As an example, when building impl, org.apache.myfaces.SomeUtil becomes
org.apache.myfaces.impl.SomeUtil and is then included in the impl
jarfile. For tomahawk, the class becomes
org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk.SomeUtil etc.

This should:
(a) solve the branching/synchronisation issues discussed on the thread
titled "New Tomahawk Branch".
(b) solve any version-conflict issues, where a new version of tomahawk
is being used against an older version of myfaces impl and vice versa.
(c) restore the number of jarfiles in myfaces to the same as the sun RI,
ie api, impl.

Actually, I would be in favour of renaming all commons stuff to
org.apache.myfaces.commons anyway; that would still work fine with
either approach and is clearer.

I'm not quite sure what the best way to handle the build is; source
could build against org.apache.myfaces.SomeUtil, and the package
tweaking then occurs after the code is all built. Alternatively source
could build against org.apache.myfaces.{module}.SomeUtil, which means a
muilt-step build process: (a) repackage .class files from commons, (b)
build source, (c) include commons classes into module jarfile.

I am willing to put some time into this; I've done some bytecode
manipulation stuff before and this isn't trivial but isn't terribly
difficult either.

I really do think that releasing a commons jarfile will cause very nasty
release implications in the future.

Opinions?

Regards,

Simon

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 10:05 -0500, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> The benefits outweight the downsides.  Currently, there's no guarantee
> that any particular Myfaces release will support your custom
> components if you have a dependency on our classes.
> 
> Also, up to this point, if you're depending on Myfaces classes for
> your custom components, it's difficult to know if you're depending on
> API, IMPL, COMMONS, or TOMAHAWK pieces.   This should make it far
> clearer, and make it easier for developers in the long run.
> 
> A separate commons release is also new enough that it shouldn't be too
> big of an issue.
> 
> The sooner we start doing things the "right" way, the sooner people
> can feel safe about using commons to build their components.
> 
> On 2/17/06, Manfred Geiler <manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well it's a package refactoring. So, each dependend (or using) class
> > in impl and tomahawk must be aligned as well. I'm feeling much warmer
> > when doing this within my IDE, which has total knowledge of all
> > dependencies.  ;-)
> >
> > BTW, is everyone really aware of what I'm proposing here?
> > We have an already released myfaces-commons-1.1.2 lib with package structure
> > org.apache.myfaces.*
> > The next myfaces-commons-1.1.3 will have package structure
> > org.apache.myfaces.commons.*
> > This is not what normally should happen between minor release changes, right?
> > At least we must make prominent notice about this in commons 1.1.3
> > release notes.
> > Do you think there are already people out there, using myfaces-commons
> > as base for there own components? They might be angry, no?  ;-)
> >
> > Everyone really sure? Really no objections?
> > :-)
> >
> > Manfred
> >
> >
> > On 2/17/06, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Just do the svn move manuall.  Its not too hard.
> > >
> > > On 2/17/06, Arvid Hülsebus <arvid.huelsebus@atanion.com> wrote:
> > > > It looks like he had only problems with older versions of IDEA or the
> > > > Subversion client. We can't report any problems with IDEA 5.1.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Arvid
> > > >
> > > > Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > > > +1 from me. definitely.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/17/06, Arvid Hülsebus <arvid.huelsebus@atanion.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Normally it does, but there are some limitations. I will ask
Udo when he
> > > > >> is back -- in about 30 minutes. He gained some experience restructuring
> > > > >> our repository for the donation of the Tobago source.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards,
> > > > >> Arvid
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Manfred Geiler wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> pps. Use svn move to do this so we don't lose our history
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Does anyone know if IntelliJ does "svn move" behind the scenes
when
> > > > >>> moving (refactoring) classes?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Manfred
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > 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