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 23:48:54 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:darkarena@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:07 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
> 
> That is a good point and this is even worse.  Shale not only has an
> existing code base, but also an existing community.

True.

> I wouldn't argue if you guys wanted to move shale-test over though.  :)
> The Bridge needs something similar to support testing of portlet JSF
> functionality.  But that is a different story.

Well, I made the mistake of talking about working on Shale Test @ JSFDays a
few weeks ago, so I think you'll see more progress in that area... 
> Scott
> 
> Kito D. Mann wrote:
> > 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