myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Trinidad][api]TRINIDAD-1857 Add a Map associated with each window or tab that the user is interacting with
Date Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:02:34 GMT
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Gerhard Petracek
<gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
> an optional trinidad-support module for codi, orchestra,... could use the
> special events of trinidad. -> these trinidad-support modules would have a
> dependency to trinidad (and not the other way round). if users don't use the
> support module for trinidad, the std. behavior of these frameworks would be
> used as fallback.

I am fine with that, in parallel. At least CODI sounds interesting (for me).

> i'm not talking about one jar file.
> internally we would have several modules (e.g. a stand-alone skinning
> module).
> -> we can release the fine grained modules as well as trinidad-api and
> trinidad-impl.
> (we would need special modules just for packaging trinidad-api and
> trinidad-impl jar files via the shade plugin of maven.)
> -> some users would use the fine grained modules and the rest continues to
> use trinidad-api and trinidad-impl (like today).

hrm, is that really needed?
Not sure that there is a lot of benefit from it, beside the extra work...
On other subprojects, like CODI itself, it does make sense, since it
is more modular.

heck, this is a different topic, let's discuss that on a different
(->new) thread :)

-Matthias

> regards,
> gerhard
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
> 2010/7/21 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Gerhard Petracek
>> <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > hi mark,
>> > nobody said that it would harm (at least i'm not aware of technical
>> > issues).
>> > (maybe some people would use it even though they shouldn't - e.g.
>> > because
>> > they have an alternative which should be used in their application/s.)
>> > furthermore, i agree with martin - most projects are using (or will use)
>> > one
>> > of the mentioned frameworks.
>>
>> a lot != most :)
>>
>> > the questions are:
>> > who would use this feature?
>> >  - new projects? i don't think so.
>>
>> possible..
>>
>> >  - existing projects?
>>
>> yes, why not?
>>
>> > would they upgrade to a new version of trinidad just for using this
>> > feature?
>>
>> pretty soon, I hope end of July, there will be a new release (2.0.0-beta),
>> since
>> the JSF2 and also its (jsf2) ajax bridge is kinda stable, now
>>
>> > maybe it's the right time to discuss our plans for the future of
>> > trinidad.
>>
>> I know that - at least my goal - is finishing on the JSF 2.0 uptake.
>> not sure if I am too thrilled about forcing hard dependencies to
>> CDI/Spring
>>
>> but I said before, that we could layout an *independent* API for something
>> like window/event systems and let submodules implement with APIs they
>> want,
>> e.g. CDI or more heavy-weight: Spring
>>
>> > (at least if we should use the maven shade plugin for modularizing
>> > trinidad.
>> > in such a case we could also provide an all-in-one package via special
>> > modules. so users won't see any difference, if they prefer the existing
>> > monolithic package.)
>>
>> for runtime dependency its is trinidad-api and trinidad-impl;
>> wanna pack that into one jar?
>>
>> > regards,
>> > gerhard
>> > http://www.irian.at
>> >
>> > Your JSF powerhouse -
>> > JSF Consulting, Development and
>> > Courses in English and German
>> >
>> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>> >
>> >
>> > 2010/7/21 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>> >>
>> >> Hmm difficult topic.
>> >>
>> >> Please allow me a few questions:
>> >>
>> >> a.) Trinidad components would still work with using either Orchestra
>> >> conversations or CODI?
>> >> b) You are not relying on other components or the users using your
>> >> conversation
>> >> stuff if they don't like?
>> >> c) if the user doesn't make use of this feature, it will not pollute
>> >> the
>> >> viewRoot or cause heavy performance hits?
>> >>
>> >> If all this is ok, then there is imo no argument against adding it to
>> >> Trinidad.
>> >> This doesn't mean I like it either, but it doesn't hurt at least ;)
>> >>
>> >> LieGrue,
>> >> strub
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>> >> >To: MyFaces Development <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
>> >> >Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 10:16:23 AM
>> >> >Subject: Re: [Trinidad][api]TRINIDAD-1857 Add a Map associated with
>> >> > each
>> >> >  window
>> >> >
>> >> >or tab that the user is interacting with
>> >> >
>> >> >i agree with martin.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >regards,
>> >> >gerhard
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.irian.at
>> >> >
>> >> >Your JSF powerhouse -
>> >> >JSF Consulting, Development and
>> >> >Courses in English and German
>> >> >
>> >> >Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >2010/7/21 Martin Marinschek <mmarinschek@apache.org>
>> >> >
>> >> >Hi Matthias,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Not everybody is using CDI and/or Spring.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>well, in the real world and a little while in the future, there
is
>> >> >> not
>> >> >>many people who will not have one of these frameworks in their
>> >> >>applications.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I think, on long term we may want one clean and independent
API,
>> >> >>> where
>> >> >>> all these projects offer an implementation for a window/event
>> >> >>> system:
>> >> >>> -CODI
>> >> >>> -Orchestra
>> >> >>> -Trinidad
>> >> >>> -etc
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> However, right now, Trinidad has the base already and adding
a new
>> >> >>> toolset to the belt feels kinda wrong.
>> >> >>> Again +1 on this to be inside of Trinidad.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This does not mean that we could work on a better future version
of
>> >> >>> a
>> >> >>> more unified API, for this. Right?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>yes, this is what we could and what we should. Why not take this
>> >> >>addition as a reason to do this right now? If we don´t take such
>> >> >>additions as a reason to do this, what else will be our reason?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>best regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Martin
>> >> >>
>> >> >>--
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>http://www.irian.at
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Your JSF powerhouse -
>> >> >>JSF Consulting, Development and
>> >> >>Courses in English and German
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Mime
View raw message