myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kito D. Mann" <km...@virtua.com>
Subject RE: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Date Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:22:12 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:martin.marinschek@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:16 AM
> To: MyFaces Development; mario@ops.co.at
> Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> 
> For me, a merger makes sense.

Seems almost unanimous :-).

> The question is who will do the work, though.

That's always the question :-).

> Some reflections on the modules:
> 
> - ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense
> here (the notion of subflows which

I like Orchesta a lot, but I don't think the view controller/dialog features
should be tied to Spring....

> - Clay: Yes, obviously Facelets has won the race - we should all
> concentrate our efforts there, so that the JSF community can profit as
> a whole (and is not splitted)

Facelets definitely needs more resources too.

> - Tiger-extensions: again, this would make sense in Orchestra, as an
> alternative way of configuring Orchestras beans (and also other beans,
> of course) to using Spring

I think we'd still need to support standard managed beans, though.

> - test-framework: we've long used it in MyFaces, but for recent tests
> both Matthias and me have used EasyMock, it is somewhat easier to
> define changing interface behaviour with EasyMock than with static
> mock-classes. Still, this is valuable, and should be a separate module
> in the merger.

Could shale-test be enhanced by using EasyMock?
'
> - validators - no, probably not really
> - s:token: I'd love to have a generic way of preventing duplicated
> posts. But I guess this is something that Orchestra could eventually
> handle?

Honestly, this may be more of a Tomahawk think. Perhaps a specialized form
component?

> apart from that, I don't know much more about Shale - sorry.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 10/22/07, Mario Ivankovits <mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Ok, so what about having a 'myfaces dormant' project where each
> module gets
> > added where it seems there is no real maintainer.
> > This could be a place for abandoned sandbox stuff too.
> > I know, the word 'maintainer' is not well placed in the context of an
> apache
> > community, but in the end I think it would be fair to show to users
> that no
> > one is really working on an project.
> >
> >
> > Mario
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Grant Smith" <work.grant@gmail.com>
> > Date: Monday, Okt 22, 2007 6:02 pm
> > Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > To: Reply-    "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>To:
> "MyFaces
> > Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
> >
> > Conceptually, I am in favor of a merge. I wouldn't wait for JSF 2.0
> to do
> > it, though. +1.
> > >
> > >
> > >On 10/22/07, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:At least,
> 1
> > year, that is my guess.
> > >
> > >So, I agree w/ Kito here
> > >
> > >-M
> > >
> > >On 10/22/07, Kito D. Mann <kmann@virtua.com> wrote:
> > >> I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or more
> > away....
> > >>
> > >>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > >> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
> mentoring
> > >> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:bernhard.slominski@zooplus.com]
> > >> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM
> > >> > To: 'dev@shale.apache.org'; MyFaces Development
> > >> > Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
> > >> > So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting)
> should not
> > >> > move,
> > >> > but just stay in Shale.
> > >> > Also let's see where templating and component development goes
> before
> > >> > making
> > >> > a decision about Clay.
> > >> > So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it comes to
> JSF 2
> > >> > all
> > >> > Add-Ons move to MyFaces.
> > >> >
> > >> > Bernhard
> > >> >
> > >> > > -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> > >> > > Von: craigmcc@gmail.com [mailto:craigmcc@gmail.com]Im Auftrag
> > >> > > von Craig
> > >> > > McClanahan
> > >> > > Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 01:48
> > >> > > An: MyFaces Development; Shale Developers List
> > >> > > Betreff: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > >     * Remoting
> > >> > > > > Unsure, as most of this can be done with PPR too.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > +1 This is pretty useful and easy to use, and will affect
> JSF 2.0.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > A secondary benefit is near-zero config for resource access,
> > >&gt
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 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