Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gcjmu-myfaces-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender)
To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
From: Werner Punz <werner.punz@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Trinidad
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:55:55 +0200
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <gc8anb$rss$2@ger.gmane.org>
References: <bc36a6210809281540x22ba9309u27344de354769951@mail.gmail.com>
	 <bc36a6210809290900v416af339rc29cb85dcec3b627@mail.gmail.com>
	 <71235db40809290917y18b48740xffd9e7e4bd8d056b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <254acf980809290943g39690d81kfb583e723e47ceb4@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc36a6210809291040r6c884f5lcb33a4a540b70fc3@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
In-Reply-To: <bc36a6210809291040r6c884f5lcb33a4a540b70fc3@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>

Andrew Robinson schrieb:
>> However, as Matthias pointed out, JSF 2.0 standardize Trinidad's principal
>> core features namely PPR and Resource handling and hopefully skinning too.
>> Under such circumstances, I feel that we should wait for 2.0 to be cemented
>> before going through a massive refactoring of some of the old and twisted
>> code parts so that the refactored design is fully compatible with 1.2, but
>> using 2.0 concept to make the upgrade to 2.0 easier imho.
> 
> Although those are really good concerns, I wonder how long it will
> take JSF2 to be adopted. It seems like many are even reluctant to
> adopt 1.2. So I wonder if it is still worth it for us to make an
> effort to at least clean up the 1.2 trunk? (I did not mention the 1.0
> trunk as I seem to have lost my desire to maintain the JSF 1.1 code
> myself)
> 
Well the JSF 1.2 adaption is slow, due to several reasons, some people 
cannot due to the Java 5 adoption inherent to JEE5 (Political concerns).

For others it simply is not worth it, they do not gain too much, most 
areas JSF 1.2 addresses are covered already by extensions.

JSF2 however is an entirely different issue, if it works out it removes 
pretty much every weak point of jsf and adds a lot of stuff people 
really need in their day to day applications. I assume the adoption will 
probably very high with new applications probably trying to target 2.0 asap!


> I guess it comes down to time and desire. I worry about the UIXNode
> conversion as I don't yet fully understand that code enough to feel
> comfortable porting it without missing things. I guess I could create
> sandbox renderers for the components, then if they look complete, we
> could promote them & replace the UIXNode ones at that time. Is there a
> WIKI page that I missed that talks about how to convert these guys or
> about any of the UIXNode architecture?
+1