myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From gvanma...@comcast.net (Gary VanMatre)
Subject Re: shale-test location (was RE: JSF 2.0 component set)
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:37:27 GMT
Yeah, Craig was doing that just before one of the apache conferences - the one in Austin. 
We had a co-presentation.  He was the primary and instead of putting together the slides,
he was working on the 1.2 mock objects.  Scott, you know that I'm *not* the kind of guy that
is good with public speaking.  For Craig, it was just another 20-minute task that he did the
night before :--)

Gary

 



 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Scott O'Bryan" <darkarena@gmail.com>
> Kito - ShaleTest is already JSF 1.2
> 
> Scott
> 
> Kito D. Mann wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:darkarena@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:21 PM
> >> To: MyFaces Development
> >> Cc: 'Gary VanMatre'
> >> Subject: Re: JSF 2.0 component set
> >>
> >> I foresee an exact copy of the functionality outlined by shale-test,
> >> only with portlet mock objects. The reason it's enticing to move it
> >> in-house is that implementations of the externalcontext depend a lot on
> >> JSF itself. Enhancements/bug fixes could parallel those in faces and
> >> the
> >> bridge. Still, all I really need are portlet JSF test classes. I don't
> >> really care where it lives although I'd prefer to contribute to only
> >> one
> >> project. :)
> >>     
> >
> > I don't really see why the physical location affects the ability to fix bugs
> > or do enhancements in parallel, unless it depends on some common
> > implementation classes. Or, are you talking more about releases?
> >
> > Well, I'm happy whether it's in MyFaces or Shale, as long as we can update
> > it for JSF 1.2 and the Bridge. So, if you want it to be part of MyFaces and
> > are willing to deal with the work of getting it established, I think you'd
> > have a good case. 
> >
> > What do others think (especially Gary)?
> >
> >   
> >> Kito D. Mann wrote:
> >>     
> >>> *From:* Gary VanMatre [mailto:gvanmatre@comcast.net]
> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:16 AM
> >>> *To:* MyFaces Development; kmann@virtua.com; 'MyFaces Development'
> >>> *Cc:* Kito D. Mann
> >>> *Subject:* RE: JSF 2.0 component set
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> From: "Kito D. Mann" <kmann@virtua.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>         
> >>> The big issue I had with merging was that the majority didn't want to
> >>> bring over all of shale. At this point, I don't think it would be
> >>> responsible just to drop support unless you could offer a comparable
> >>> feature.
> >>>
> >>> True. I thought it might make sense to bring the biggest pieces over
> >>> to MyFaces, but if we can revive part of Shale's development, I'm
> >>>       
> >> fine
> >>     
> >>> with that too. I just wanted to avoid atrophy of the entire Shale
> >>>       
> >> code
> >>     
> >>> base :-).
> >>>
> >>> The shale's test library is one of the few that have not been
> >>> reinvented over and over and that seemed to be where the root
> >>>       
> >> interest
> >>     
> >>> is with myfaces.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of maintaining Shale, we most certainly encourage
> >>> contributions the same as myfaces :-)
> >>>
> >>> Of course :-).
> >>>
> >>> Gary
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>> 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
> >>>       
> >>>>> exis! ting re nderkits 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
> >>     
> >>> &! gt; > ; 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*
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>>>> 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 :-).
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> ! > &g t;
> >>>>         
> >>>>>> 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,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> ! > &g t; 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 back ward
> >>>>>>>>                 
> >> 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
> >>>>>           
> >>>>>>> &g! t; work able beta is around the first steps for
the
> >>>>>>>               
> >>> realization
> >>>       
> >>>>>> could be
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>>>>> made...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> regards
> >>>>>>>> Alexander
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                 
> >>>>>>             
> >
> >   
> 


Mime
View raw message