myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From gvanma...@comcast.net (Gary VanMatre)
Subject Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Date Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:32:11 GMT
>From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@apache.org> 
>
> Perhaps, we just should wait, when it comes to Faces 2.x impl and take 
> the bits, as we need them; 
> same is true for Orchestra (like Dialog/VC) as well. 
> 
> Besides that, the Test may be interesting for us, since we use it, and 
> I'd like to see that module stays alive :-) 
>

Indeed, you are a committer in both projects so you could make that a reality regardless.

 
> -Matthias 
> 
> On Dec 6, 2007 8:34 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: 
> > to bring light to this discussion; 
> > 
> > On Oct 24, 2007 8:15 AM, Martin Marinschek 
> wrote: 
> > > For me, a merger makes sense. 
> > > 
> > > The question is who will do the work, though. 
> > 
> > yup! That's right. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Some reflections on the modules: 
> > > 
> > > - ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense 
> > > here (the notion of subflows which 
> > 
> > I think the Orchestra VC is pretty solid, right now; I personally like it 
> more. 
> > What potential makes sense (as an addition) is the Dialog mgr 
> > + the XML-W3C-thing (forgot the name :-) ) 
> > 
> > > - 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) 
> > 
> > yes, no need for that, sorry to say. 
> > 
> > > - 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 
> > 
> > for the discussion I have the understanding, that Tiger will be used as 
> > JSF2 @nnotation solution. We should take that bit for the next impl... :) 
> > 
> > > - 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. 
> > > - validators - no, probably not really 
> > 
> > please no 
> > 
> > > - 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? 
> > > 
> > > apart from that, I don't know much more about Shale - sorry. 
> > 
> > other bits, that were discussed were: 
> > -AppController 
> > looks like nobody is really interested in this 
> > -Remoting 
> > sounds like a nice enhancement; and may be JSF 2.0 (as mentioned by 
> > some folks here) 
> > -Spring-Integration 
> > no need for that 
> > 
> > (Did I miss a module?) 
> > 
> > 
> > It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release; 
> > I am +1 on that. 
> > 
> > I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces. 
> > I can see interest in these Shale-modules: 
> > -Dialog 
> > -Remoting 
> > -Test 
> > -Tiger 
> > -ViewController 
> > 
> > What happens to the rest? 
> > I don't know; 
> > Will they be maintained ? 
> > I don't know; 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > regards, 
> > > 
> > > Martin 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 10/22/07, Mario Ivankovits 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" 
> > > > Date: Monday, Okt 22, 2007 6:02 pm 
> > > > Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces 
> > > > To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" To: "MyFaces 
> > > > Development" 
> > > > 
> > > > 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 wrote:At least, 1 
> > > > year, that is my guess. 
> > > > > 
> > > > >So, I agree w/ Kito here 
> > > > > 
> > > > >-M 
> > > > > 
> > > > >On 10/22/07, Kito D. Mann 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 
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> > > -----Ursprüngliche 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, 
> > > > >> 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 
> > > http://www.irian.at 
> > > 
> > > Your JSF powerhouse - 
> > > JSF Consulting, Development and 
> > > Courses in English and German 
> > > 
> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Matthias Wessendorf 
> > 
> > further stuff: 
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ 
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf 
> > 
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matthias Wessendorf 
> 
> further stuff: 
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ 
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf 
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org 
Mime
View raw message