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 12:21:24 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message