myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthias Wessendorf" <mat...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Trinidad, Tomahawk, Tobago, and RCF [Was: [Proposal] RCF, a rich component library for JSF]
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:50:30 GMT
On 3/15/07, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
> One big concern I have is that we do not go to such an extreme (like
> Tobago did) that we are no longer compatible with other component
> sets.   Once you start requiring a specific kind of form or document,
> then you've just made yourself incompatible with anything else that
> might require a specific kind of form or document.

Trinidad also has a *need* for document, when doing PPR

http://incubator.apache.org/adffaces/trinidad-api/tagdoc/tr_panelPartialRoot.html

> I'm not entirely certain what the issue with the Extensions filter is
> (beyond portlet-incompatiblity).   Once it's configured, it seems to
> work just fine, and it doesn't break compatiblity with other component
> sets.

-portlet (trinidad uses a servlet for resources like images, not sure
if that better works in portlet land)

one of the other things is, that the *filter* adds the JS
(addToHeader() or what ever the syntax is)

-M

>
> On 3/15/07, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > Also one *target* should be getting rid of the extension filter and
> > use an approach like Trinidad document or Tobago's page, where the
> > components (their renderers) register themselfs and put out their
> > resources, like funny javascript.
> >
> > also the "common fileupload" (done in Tobago Contrib, already).
> >
> > On 3/15/07, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > > myfaces commons should first contain the "tomahawk non-renderkit" things.
> > > putting stuff there from tobago and trinidad is a next step, to me
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, Gary VanMatre <gvanmatre@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Mike Kienenberger" <mkienenb@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Still a huge first step would be a "myfaces commons", containing
stuff
> > > > > > > like updateActionlistener and validators/converters.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/15/07, Gary VanMatre wrote:
> > > > > > I would think that even moving the validators and converters
out would
> > > > be a
> > > > > > big step since they provide client side support. There would
need to be
> > > > a
> > > > > > *single* script delivery mechanism and the component renderers
would
> > > > need to
> > > > > > have API hooks in order to act on behalf of these "components"
> > > > (converters,
> > > > > > validators) that don't have renderers.
> > > > >
> > > > > We're only talking about moving things with no renderkit dependencies
> > > > > into commons. That's true for most of the Tomahawk converters and
> > > > > validators. Commons would contain things that should be usable in
> > > > > any JSF implementation an d with any JSF component set.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I was thinking about Trinidad's Converters and Validators.
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com

Mime
View raw message