Should I migrate from Tomahawk to Trinidad ?

[John Mani <jo...@gmail.com>]

Hi

We are using MyFaces and the Tomohawk components in our web apps. For the
next
version, we're looking at updating our UI.

Should we be looking at Trinidad - as the next evolution of the Tomohawk
components ?

Is it stable enough for a product release sometime early next year (Feb,
Mar) ?

When is the first release of Trinidad expected ?

thanx
-jm

Re: Should I migrate from Tomahawk to Trinidad ?

[Brian Smith <un...@gmail.com>]

Much of the Trinidad documentation can be derived from the Oracle ADF Faces
documentation.  There have some been a number of components and classes
renamed but much of the overall concepts are the same.  The ADF Faces
components were donated to Apache and were then renamed to Trinidad.

http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jdev/htdocs/faq_adffaces_apache.html

http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jdev/htdocs/partners/addins/exchange/jsf/doc/tagdoc/core/imageIndex.html

On 11/22/06, John Mani <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I assume Trinidad (being derived from SDF) supports a superset of the
> Tomahawk
> components ?
>
> Can someone point me to a FAQ or send any docs on how to get started with
> Trinidad ? - where to get the jars/wars, example programs, documentation
> on
> the
> components ?
>
> The FAQ and docs at http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Trinidad is too sparse.
> The snapshot-repository contains the api, demo, impl and trinidad
> directories, but
> I'm not sure what all is needed and how to deploy.
>
> If there's a quick tutorial or cookbook on how to get started, that'll be
> greatly
> apprecicated.
>
> thanx much
> -jm
>
>
> On 11/22/06, Brian Smith <un...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Other than both being subsets of MyFaces, Tomahawk and Trinidad are not
> > related.  I don't believe that Trinidad is going to replace Tomahawk at
> > all.  I use Trinidad over Tomahawk because the components are
> > richer.  Also
> > Trinidad supports partial page rendering and skinning.  I just think
> > Trinidad provides more out of the box functionality.  As to the release
> > dates, I have no idea.  I guess its just whenever it gets done.  I am
> sure
> > Matthias Wessendorf or Adam Winer could give you some sort of idea.
> >
> > On 11/22/06, John Mani <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > We are using MyFaces and the Tomohawk components in our web apps. For
> > the
> > > next
> > > version, we're looking at updating our UI.
> > >
> > > Should we be looking at Trinidad - as the next evolution of the
> Tomohawk
> > > components ?
> > >
> > > Is it stable enough for a product release sometime early next year
> (Feb,
> > > Mar) ?
> > >
> > > When is the first release of Trinidad expected ?
> > >
> > > thanx
> > > -jm
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Should I migrate from Tomahawk to Trinidad ?

[John Mani <jo...@gmail.com>]

I assume Trinidad (being derived from SDF) supports a superset of the
Tomahawk
components ?

Can someone point me to a FAQ or send any docs on how to get started with
Trinidad ? - where to get the jars/wars, example programs, documentation on
the
components ?

The FAQ and docs at http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Trinidad is too sparse.
The snapshot-repository contains the api, demo, impl and trinidad
directories, but
I'm not sure what all is needed and how to deploy.

If there's a quick tutorial or cookbook on how to get started, that'll be
greatly
apprecicated.

thanx much
-jm


On 11/22/06, Brian Smith <un...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Other than both being subsets of MyFaces, Tomahawk and Trinidad are not
> related.  I don't believe that Trinidad is going to replace Tomahawk at
> all.  I use Trinidad over Tomahawk because the components are
> richer.  Also
> Trinidad supports partial page rendering and skinning.  I just think
> Trinidad provides more out of the box functionality.  As to the release
> dates, I have no idea.  I guess its just whenever it gets done.  I am sure
> Matthias Wessendorf or Adam Winer could give you some sort of idea.
>
> On 11/22/06, John Mani <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > We are using MyFaces and the Tomohawk components in our web apps. For
> the
> > next
> > version, we're looking at updating our UI.
> >
> > Should we be looking at Trinidad - as the next evolution of the Tomohawk
> > components ?
> >
> > Is it stable enough for a product release sometime early next year (Feb,
> > Mar) ?
> >
> > When is the first release of Trinidad expected ?
> >
> > thanx
> > -jm
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Should I migrate from Tomahawk to Trinidad ?

[Brian Smith <un...@gmail.com>]

Other than both being subsets of MyFaces, Tomahawk and Trinidad are not
related.  I don't believe that Trinidad is going to replace Tomahawk at
all.  I use Trinidad over Tomahawk because the components are richer.  Also
Trinidad supports partial page rendering and skinning.  I just think
Trinidad provides more out of the box functionality.  As to the release
dates, I have no idea.  I guess its just whenever it gets done.  I am sure
Matthias Wessendorf or Adam Winer could give you some sort of idea.

On 11/22/06, John Mani <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> We are using MyFaces and the Tomohawk components in our web apps. For the
> next
> version, we're looking at updating our UI.
>
> Should we be looking at Trinidad - as the next evolution of the Tomohawk
> components ?
>
> Is it stable enough for a product release sometime early next year (Feb,
> Mar) ?
>
> When is the first release of Trinidad expected ?
>
> thanx
> -jm
>
>

Re: Should I migrate from Tomahawk to Trinidad ?

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

regarding the PPR,
that *technology* was first done with Adf Faces (Trinidad).
The name PPR was chosen, because ajax was only used for cleaning at that time :)
it uses Iframe because xhr was not there (or common)

-M

On 11/22/06, Hazem Saleh <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recently I had tried trinidad and it really works fine.
> Trinidad really has a lot of nice features.  Some of them are :
> 1. Very large set of JSF reusable components which you can really use
> at any business application which really may reduce the development
> time as you will not have to write many components of your own from
> scratch to handle customer usual requirements.
> 2. PPR is done in a very easy way with trinidad I really liked its way
> for PPR. It is really as easy as Ajax4JSF.
> Please check that usage of PPR :-
> http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog?entry=partial_page_rendering_using_trinidad
> 3. Please also check the demos at to go through its nice components :
> http://www.irian.at/trinidad-demo/faces/index.jspx
>
> On 11/22/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On 11/22/06, John Mani <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > We are using MyFaces and the Tomohawk components in our web apps. For the
> > > next
> > > version, we're looking at updating our UI.
> >
> > Good to hear that you stay with JSF.
> > For the next view technology I suggest to use facelets (xhtml) instead
> > of old school jsp :)
> >
> >
> > > Should we be looking at Trinidad - as the next evolution of the Tomohawk
> > > components ?
> >
> > Looking into Trinidad is wroth, but Trinidad is not the "Tomahawk 2.0".
> > Tomahawk is the original jsf component from the myfaces community.
> > That community was growing so far; we got new libs:
> >
> > -Tobago
> > -Trinidad
> >
> > I'd say that looking closer at Trinidad is a good thing. Since some
> > MyFaces Core guys worked abit on the Tomahawk lib you can use both.
> > Trinidad may be a bit more feature rich, like Brian said. Yes, give it
> > a try! :)
> >
> > > Is it stable enough for a product release sometime early next year (Feb,
> > > Mar) ?
> >
> > The story behind Trinidad is that it is donated by Oracle. ADF Faces
> > has been around the JSF community since years. The lib is stable and
> > already used by several companies/projects (see wiki for some
> > examples).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > When is the first release of Trinidad expected ?
> >
> > We depend a bit on the Apache Software Foundation on that. We voted on
> > an old (currently unused) plugins release, but I'd like to get a
> > fresher plugin release, on which we really depend when *building* the
> > Trinidad stuff.
> >
> > After the plugins is really out, we start on the *core*, which are the
> > components.
> >
> > Some more documentation can be found here:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/adffaces/
> >
> > Demos (and commercial support) are offered by the Irian company:
> > http://www.irian.at/adfFaces.jsf
> >
> > HTH,
> > Matthias
> >
> > >
> > > thanx
> > > -jm
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>
> --
> Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
> IBM Egypt Cairo TDC ( Technology Development Center )
> WebSphere Business Integration Modeler Software Engineer
> http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com

Re: Should I migrate from Tomahawk to Trinidad ?

[Hazem Saleh <ha...@gmail.com>]

Recently I had tried trinidad and it really works fine.
Trinidad really has a lot of nice features.  Some of them are :
1. Very large set of JSF reusable components which you can really use
at any business application which really may reduce the development
time as you will not have to write many components of your own from
scratch to handle customer usual requirements.
2. PPR is done in a very easy way with trinidad I really liked its way
for PPR. It is really as easy as Ajax4JSF.
Please check that usage of PPR :-
http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog?entry=partial_page_rendering_using_trinidad
3. Please also check the demos at to go through its nice components :
http://www.irian.at/trinidad-demo/faces/index.jspx

On 11/22/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On 11/22/06, John Mani <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > We are using MyFaces and the Tomohawk components in our web apps. For the
> > next
> > version, we're looking at updating our UI.
>
> Good to hear that you stay with JSF.
> For the next view technology I suggest to use facelets (xhtml) instead
> of old school jsp :)
>
>
> > Should we be looking at Trinidad - as the next evolution of the Tomohawk
> > components ?
>
> Looking into Trinidad is wroth, but Trinidad is not the "Tomahawk 2.0".
> Tomahawk is the original jsf component from the myfaces community.
> That community was growing so far; we got new libs:
>
> -Tobago
> -Trinidad
>
> I'd say that looking closer at Trinidad is a good thing. Since some
> MyFaces Core guys worked abit on the Tomahawk lib you can use both.
> Trinidad may be a bit more feature rich, like Brian said. Yes, give it
> a try! :)
>
> > Is it stable enough for a product release sometime early next year (Feb,
> > Mar) ?
>
> The story behind Trinidad is that it is donated by Oracle. ADF Faces
> has been around the JSF community since years. The lib is stable and
> already used by several companies/projects (see wiki for some
> examples).
>
>
> >
> > When is the first release of Trinidad expected ?
>
> We depend a bit on the Apache Software Foundation on that. We voted on
> an old (currently unused) plugins release, but I'd like to get a
> fresher plugin release, on which we really depend when *building* the
> Trinidad stuff.
>
> After the plugins is really out, we start on the *core*, which are the
> components.
>
> Some more documentation can be found here:
> http://incubator.apache.org/adffaces/
>
> Demos (and commercial support) are offered by the Irian company:
> http://www.irian.at/adfFaces.jsf
>
> HTH,
> Matthias
>
> >
> > thanx
> > -jm
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>


-- 
Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
IBM Egypt Cairo TDC ( Technology Development Center )
WebSphere Business Integration Modeler Software Engineer
http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog

Re: Should I migrate from Tomahawk to Trinidad ?

[Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>]

On 11/22/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Should we be looking at Trinidad - as the next evolution of the Tomohawk
> > components ?
>
> Looking into Trinidad is wroth, but Trinidad is not the "Tomahawk 2.0".
> Tomahawk is the original jsf component from the myfaces community.
> That community was growing so far; we got new libs:


Yep, we can't emphasize this enough!  Trinidad is not the next
evolution of Tomahawk, and it is intended to be complimentary, not
exclusionary.  There is a bunch of overlap, and a long-term goal of
all of us in MyFaces should be building a best-of-breed next generation
component set (not, IMO, just picking and choosing among the
components).  But our short-term goal on the Trinidad side is
getting a real versioned release out and getting out of Incubator - before
those happen issues of coming together are all academic!

Cheers,
Adam Winer


-Tobago
> -Trinidad
>
> I'd say that looking closer at Trinidad is a good thing. Since some
> MyFaces Core guys worked abit on the Tomahawk lib you can use both.
> Trinidad may be a bit more feature rich, like Brian said. Yes, give it
> a try! :)
>
> > Is it stable enough for a product release sometime early next year (Feb,
> > Mar) ?
>
> The story behind Trinidad is that it is donated by Oracle. ADF Faces
> has been around the JSF community since years. The lib is stable and
> already used by several companies/projects (see wiki for some
> examples).
>
>
> >
> > When is the first release of Trinidad expected ?
>
> We depend a bit on the Apache Software Foundation on that. We voted on
> an old (currently unused) plugins release, but I'd like to get a
> fresher plugin release, on which we really depend when *building* the
> Trinidad stuff.
>
> After the plugins is really out, we start on the *core*, which are the
> components.
>
> Some more documentation can be found here:
> http://incubator.apache.org/adffaces/
>
> Demos (and commercial support) are offered by the Irian company:
> http://www.irian.at/adfFaces.jsf
>
> HTH,
> Matthias
>
> >
> > thanx
> > -jm
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>

Re: Should I migrate from Tomahawk to Trinidad ?

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

Hi John,

On 11/22/06, John Mani <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> We are using MyFaces and the Tomohawk components in our web apps. For the
> next
> version, we're looking at updating our UI.

Good to hear that you stay with JSF.
For the next view technology I suggest to use facelets (xhtml) instead
of old school jsp :)


> Should we be looking at Trinidad - as the next evolution of the Tomohawk
> components ?

Looking into Trinidad is wroth, but Trinidad is not the "Tomahawk 2.0".
Tomahawk is the original jsf component from the myfaces community.
That community was growing so far; we got new libs:

-Tobago
-Trinidad

I'd say that looking closer at Trinidad is a good thing. Since some
MyFaces Core guys worked abit on the Tomahawk lib you can use both.
Trinidad may be a bit more feature rich, like Brian said. Yes, give it
a try! :)

> Is it stable enough for a product release sometime early next year (Feb,
> Mar) ?

The story behind Trinidad is that it is donated by Oracle. ADF Faces
has been around the JSF community since years. The lib is stable and
already used by several companies/projects (see wiki for some
examples).


>
> When is the first release of Trinidad expected ?

We depend a bit on the Apache Software Foundation on that. We voted on
an old (currently unused) plugins release, but I'd like to get a
fresher plugin release, on which we really depend when *building* the
Trinidad stuff.

After the plugins is really out, we start on the *core*, which are the
components.

Some more documentation can be found here:
http://incubator.apache.org/adffaces/

Demos (and commercial support) are offered by the Irian company:
http://www.irian.at/adfFaces.jsf

HTH,
Matthias

>
> thanx
> -jm
>
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com