myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Spencer <pau...@apache.org>
Subject Re: shale-test location (was RE: JSF 2.0 component set)
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:30:24 GMT
Gary,
I also use shale-test.  One of the feature in the unreleased 1.1.0
allows you the test against any JSF 1.1/1.2 implementation without
having to replace the faces.xml configuration inside the test.  Thus
keeping the test framework independent from an implantation. Which is a
good thing and something I support.  Gary VanMatre has been named
Shale's PMC, and hopefully he, with our help, will revive the community.

FYI: Their have been many threads related to moving parts of Shale into
MyFaces.  Lets not start another one while Shale is still alive.


Paul Spencer




Gary VanMatre wrote:
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Scott O'Bryan" <darkarena@gmail.com>
>>> 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 releases are part of it.  I was meerly bringing up that the Bridge 
>> (even MyFaces) have impls which perform the logic for "ExternalContext" 
>> expected of their various specs.  These are duplicated somewhat in the 
>> shale-tests.  If it were moved over to faces, both the core-team and the 
>> bridge team would be able to maintain the test harnesses with the code 
>> they are writing.  For instance, Mock the Bridge and Servlet API's and 
>> Mock the FacesContextFactory.  It would, in turn, return an 
>> ExternalContext which (while being based off the myfaces or bridge impl) 
>> would also expose the setters needed to test thing.  But ultimately, the 
>> underlying implementations would run under the covers.  This would much 
>> easier reflect reality.
>>
>> That said, I was just bringing up the idea that I wouldn't argue against 
>> it.  The Bridge (and some of the projects I'm doing in commons) need 
>> released versions of a portlet test harness and I wouldn't mind adding 
>> these test cases to Trinidad either.  Whether I pull them from Shale or 
>> MyFaces makes no real difference to me, but I could help maintain them 
>> better if they were in MyFaces -- for a current committer of shale I am 
>> not.  :)
>>
> 
> Well, I'm not a MyFaces committer either.  Ok, I'll bore you - I had to work on Clay

> under Struts for 6 months submitting patches to the code I contributed before I
> was nominated to join.  
> 
> Of course, that was then and this is now but I'd like to see Shale grow as a community.
> The reality is that the majority of Shale was Craig's work.  I don't think that anyone
would
> dispute that. David Geary also had a hand in the inception.   That's why I'm into the
all or 
> nothing versus the cafeteria plan.  Shale test is one of the nuggets.  The annotation
and 
> remoting are also being used as the foundation - point of discussion for JSF 2.0.
> Shale controller + shale dialog is a simplified version of ADFc 11g. 
> 
> I don't know...  I think we all know how to work together amongst apache communities.
 
> I'm sorta disappointed but at the same time it makes sense.  I remember Ted Husted
> (someone else I have great respect for) saying open source is sometimes like a 
> jealous mistress.  I think he might have told me that just before the merger with webwork.
> The interesting bit there is that struts 1.x code base still exists.
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 
>> Scott
>>> 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