myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
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 12:51:39 GMT
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'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).

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 donĀ“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
>

Mime
View raw message