myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthias Wessendorf" <mat...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:58:19 GMT
we can do that. I'd also like to see this (sub)project stays alive,
at Apache ;-)

I am not sure, if we need the infra@ guys for the mv.

-M

On Dec 6, 2007 3:54 PM, Paul Spencer <paulsp@apache.org> wrote:
> Their is a feature in the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework that reads
> the implementation's configuration, i.e. faces.xml, when setting up the
> environment.  This feature is valuable when testing against different
> implementations, i.e. RI 1.1.  In tomahawk 1.1.x, I hard coded some of
> the  configuration to enable some of the component testing.  This hard
> coding fails when testing against the RI.  At one time I did modify the
> test to use the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework to run the tests
> against the RI, but I never committed the works because I did not want
> to introduce a SNAPSHOT dependency.  Move the test-framework into
> MyFaces and I will commit the work.
>
> I request that test-framework be moved into MyFace.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
>
>
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > to bring light to this discussion;
> >
> > On Oct 24, 2007 8:15 AM, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com> 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 <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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>



-- 
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