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: JSF 2.0 component set
Date Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:03:38 GMT
I just want to add that when we were talking about moving Shale over to
MyFaces, people were worried about resources for maintaining it. And Shale
is an *existing* code base :-). I think it'd make a lot more sense to
migrate the existing suites to JSF 2 branches.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
phone: +1 203-653-2989
fax: +1 203-653-2988


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:darkarena@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:39 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
> 
> Bruno, I totally agree, but we don't want a lot of dead projects out
> there either.  My point, and I think Simon's as well, is that much of
> the contributions to the MyFaces Projects and renderkits comes from
> companies and individuals who have a vested interest in supporting the
> existing renderkits going forward.  Getting MyFaces core up to 2.0 is
> going to take away interest from the new project as is getting
> renderkits like Trinidad to be JSF 2.0 compatible.  This is not to say
> that there isn't an interest in this, but one could spend hundreds of
> developer hours getting their head around Trinidad alone, and without
> the support of the majority of those currently active in the community,
> this project may be doomed from the start.  You may be able to leverage
> some resources from other projects by moving as much stuff as possible
> into the commons, but projects of this scope take a lot of time and my
> guess is that you're basically looking at growing a new community.
> 
> I would seriously look at bringing a project of this scope into
> incubator first.  It'll hopefully help you to build the community you
> need.
> 
> Scott
> 
> Bruno Aranda wrote:
> > I don't see why not we could start a new component set for jsf 2.0 if
> > there is enough interest within the developers and users. This is a
> > community thing and if people worked heavily in such a project and
> the
> > result was good, I don't see why it should not exist. If others want
> > to maintain Trinidad and Tobago, any help is welcome too. At the end,
> > it is up to each individual :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > On 31/03/2008, *simon* <simon.kitching@chello.at
> > <mailto:simon.kitching@chello.at>> wrote:
> >
> >     Tomahawk certainly does need a radical refresh. It's got some
> useful
> >     stuff, but is very ugly internally.
> >
> >     There is slow work going on at the moment on something called the
> >     myfaces "commons projects" (or some similar name). The idea is to
> >     split
> >     up tomahawk into about 4 different pieces. At the same time it's
> >     therefore possible to discard the bits that have too much overlap
> with
> >     other projects (esp Trinidad).
> >
> >     That doesn't mean that the current Tomahawk will be abandoned,
> but
> >     it is
> >     an opportunity to scavenge the best bits for commons and discard
> the
> >     rest. But I'd really like to see new stuff go into the "commons"
> >     projects myself. Whether commons is JSF1.2 or JSF2.0 depends on
> the
> >     relative progress of commons vs the JSF spec I suppose :-).
> >
> >     I can't see Trinidad being rewritten anytime soon; that's a
> pretty big
> >     job. Just getting a core JSF-2.0 implementation done is likely to
> suck
> >     up all the spare time of the current myfaces contributors. And,
> >     like for
> >     Tomahawk, there is a big pool of people who want to use Trinidad
> on
> >     JSF1.2 (including the committers employed by Oracle) so the
> >     current form
> >     of Trinidad will not be going away in the near future.
> >
> >     I'm not aware of anything in JSF2.0 that is a radical improvement
> over
> >     JSF1.2. Lots of nice bits, but does it really make components
> work
> >     faster or vastly more efficient than can be done within JSF1.2?
> >
> >     Regards,
> >
> >     Simon
> >
> >
> >     On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 13:50 -0600, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> >     > +0
> >     >
> >     > While I see the merit of starting over (and certainly wouldn't
> argue
> >     > against a new component set based off of 2.0), I don't think we
> >     should
> >     > abadon/restrict renderkits from continuing to support emerging
> >     > standards.  I know that many of the folks on Trinidad are
> >     interested in
> >     > supporting 2.0 going forward and I would suspect the other
> >     renderkits
> >     > are as well.
> >     >
> >     > Scott
> >     >
> >     > Jesse Alexander (KSFH 323) wrote:
> >     > > I am wondering whether the event of JSF 2.0 would not be a
> good
> >     > > moment to create a new component set.
> >     > >
> >     > > Well... another component set?
> >     > >
> >     > > The main thoughts behind it are
> >     > > - the 3 MyFaces component sets
> >     > >   - are somewhat incompatible
> >     > >   - have each their good points
> >     > >   - have some weak points
> >     > >   - are missing some "cool" components
> >     > >   - partially have duplicated components
> >     > >   - are partially missing important concepts
> >     > >
> >     > > JSF 2.0 brings a new concept to do components.
> >     > >
> >     > > Now it would be possible to update each component set to JSF
> >     2.0...
> >     > > but a Tomahawk/JSF2 is "expected" to be backward compatible.
> So it
> >     > > would be difficult to radically change components or
> eliminate
> >     some
> >     > > duplicates...
> >     > >
> >     > > Whereas a new component set that would
> >     > > - take all good concepts from the existing 3 component sets
> >     > >   (and maybe some more from other comp-sets?)
> >     > > - deliver a clean set of components
> >     > > - just do it for JSF 2.0
> >     > > - not have to take backwards compatibility into consideration
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > > I think if such a new component set would fit, then it would
> >     be now the
> >     > > right time to think about the requirements... and as soon as
> a
> >     > > workable beta is around the first steps for the realization
> >     could be
> >     > > made...
> >     > >
> >     > > regards
> >     > > Alexander
> >     > >
> >     >
> >
> >


Mime
View raw message