You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@myfaces.apache.org by Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com> on 2007/11/28 22:20:35 UTC
Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Hi List,
Over the last half year, it seems Tomahawk, despite some fine
components, is dead; the 2.0 release hasn't gotten off the ground for
al these months, and no one seems to be actively developing it.
Trinidad on the other hand seems to acquire more and more momentum.
Now, as Tomahawk has some really cool components Trinidada doesn't
have, and while there is for sure an overlap between the two, are
there any plans for getting rid of this project clutter and unifying
these two project lines, resulting in a focussed approach?
It is my feeling the current approach hurts the MF project. There
already was quite some comment on TSS on the fact MF was really late
in implementing the 1.2 spec(I know, not only for tech reasons), but
that's not the only problem: there are all these subprojects (what to
advise to newbies? I really couldn't tell) and if you happen to
combine Facelets + MF 1.2 + Tomahawk, you're in for a debugging fest!
The list of issues seems endless. It's no fun anymore.
Therefore, in the view of the upcoming hackatron event in december,
could we share, here, some ideas/thoughts on possible/preferable
roapdmaps? I'd love to see
- a short term plan to address the Tomahawk 2.0 release
- a mid/long term plan to reduce project clutter (converge the
sublines!) We can move much faster and better, if focussed.
-Wolf
(Ps I'm not pointing fingers here - I'm just genuinly concerned and
wondering how we could better pick things up from here)
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
not really mixing;
For the trinidad-sandbox, I'll put in a renderer from Tomahawk,
to show this as a show-case...
But, not really mixing both.
As I said,I am not a fan of a <containsEveryThing:comp /> lib.
The whole incompatibility is true for several libs; due to not having a
clean integration-layer abstraction.
I hope that JSF2.0 will fix it.
-M
On Nov 29, 2007 1:06 PM, Michael Heinen <mh...@recommind.com> wrote:
> Mixing tomahawk and trinidad is a very bad idea in my eyes!
> All projects that use a4j or other ajax enabled component frameworks are
> not compatible to Trinidad (or each other).
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mwessendorf@gmail.com [mailto:mwessendorf@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Matthias Wessendorf
> Sent: Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 12:24
> To: MyFaces Discussion
> Subject: Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
>
>
> > Take an example: most people would agree facelets is good idea. The
> > Jsf 1.2 spec is out since May 11, 2006. We're 1,5 yr(one and a half
> > year!) further down the line but there is no working combination for
> > MF1.2 + Facelets + Tomahawk 2.0 (the latter, I've been told, is in
> > line with the MF 1.2 release , and indeed, I've had worse problems
> > using Toma 116 or 117 + MF1.2 + Facelets)
> > 1,5 year. For those disagreeing: check this mailing list or the posted
> > bugs: they're about basic stuff not working.
>
> myfaces 1.2 works.
> myfaces 1.2.1 will be out soon, and contains tons of fixes/enhancements
> there is no tomahawk 2.0 (not really)
>
> Again, I am still thinking, that JSF 1.2 isn't really needed.
> When JSF2 comes out, there will be much much more value on the table.
>
> >
> > Frankly I'm cornered with bugs for this combination to the extend I
> > will have to downgrade again to MF1.1. For a new project that I
> > started half a yr ago. This is sad.
>
> not sure why using myfaces 1.1.x is bad.
>
> >
> > I like Matthias's idea of a common base best. I hope the Toma/Trini
> > shells on top of it can be made very thin on the sort term (would be
> > very OO-spirited as well).
>
> actually, this discussion is old.
> (one) goal is having a *common* lib,
> that can be used (in first place) w/ all Trin/tom/tob.
>
> > On the mid/long: this would allow to diverge between stable and
> > development components, kinda like Tomahawk and Sandbox now.
> > But of the stable components, I am convinced the best approach is to
> > have them all at verybody's disposal with just one prefix (it even
> > sounds obvious no? Or am I the only one).
>
> hrm, not really one 100% sure, that a "super" lib is a good thing (tm)
>
> -Matthias
>
> >
> > --Wolf
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
RE: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Michael Heinen <mh...@recommind.com>.
Mixing tomahawk and trinidad is a very bad idea in my eyes!
All projects that use a4j or other ajax enabled component frameworks are
not compatible to Trinidad (or each other).
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: mwessendorf@gmail.com [mailto:mwessendorf@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Matthias Wessendorf
Sent: Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 12:24
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
> Take an example: most people would agree facelets is good idea. The
> Jsf 1.2 spec is out since May 11, 2006. We're 1,5 yr(one and a half
> year!) further down the line but there is no working combination for
> MF1.2 + Facelets + Tomahawk 2.0 (the latter, I've been told, is in
> line with the MF 1.2 release , and indeed, I've had worse problems
> using Toma 116 or 117 + MF1.2 + Facelets)
> 1,5 year. For those disagreeing: check this mailing list or the posted
> bugs: they're about basic stuff not working.
myfaces 1.2 works.
myfaces 1.2.1 will be out soon, and contains tons of fixes/enhancements
there is no tomahawk 2.0 (not really)
Again, I am still thinking, that JSF 1.2 isn't really needed.
When JSF2 comes out, there will be much much more value on the table.
>
> Frankly I'm cornered with bugs for this combination to the extend I
> will have to downgrade again to MF1.1. For a new project that I
> started half a yr ago. This is sad.
not sure why using myfaces 1.1.x is bad.
>
> I like Matthias's idea of a common base best. I hope the Toma/Trini
> shells on top of it can be made very thin on the sort term (would be
> very OO-spirited as well).
actually, this discussion is old.
(one) goal is having a *common* lib,
that can be used (in first place) w/ all Trin/tom/tob.
> On the mid/long: this would allow to diverge between stable and
> development components, kinda like Tomahawk and Sandbox now.
> But of the stable components, I am convinced the best approach is to
> have them all at verybody's disposal with just one prefix (it even
> sounds obvious no? Or am I the only one).
hrm, not really one 100% sure, that a "super" lib is a good thing (tm)
-Matthias
>
> --Wolf
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
> Take an example: most people would agree facelets is good idea. The
> Jsf 1.2 spec is out since May 11, 2006. We're 1,5 yr(one and a half
> year!) further down the line but there is no working combination for
> MF1.2 + Facelets + Tomahawk 2.0 (the latter, I've been told, is in
> line with the MF 1.2 release , and indeed, I've had worse problems
> using Toma 116 or 117 + MF1.2 + Facelets)
> 1,5 year. For those disagreeing: check this mailing list or the posted
> bugs: they're about basic stuff not working.
myfaces 1.2 works.
myfaces 1.2.1 will be out soon, and contains tons of fixes/enhancements
there is no tomahawk 2.0 (not really)
Again, I am still thinking, that JSF 1.2 isn't really needed.
When JSF2 comes out, there will be much much more value on the table.
>
> Frankly I'm cornered with bugs for this combination to the extend I
> will have to downgrade again to MF1.1. For a new project that I
> started half a yr ago. This is sad.
not sure why using myfaces 1.1.x is bad.
>
> I like Matthias's idea of a common base best. I hope the Toma/Trini
> shells on top of it can be made very thin on the sort term (would be
> very OO-spirited as well).
actually, this discussion is old.
(one) goal is having a *common* lib,
that can be used (in first place) w/ all Trin/tom/tob.
> On the mid/long: this would allow to diverge between stable and
> development components, kinda like Tomahawk and Sandbox now.
> But of the stable components, I am convinced the best approach is to
> have them all at verybody's disposal with just one prefix (it even
> sounds obvious no? Or am I the only one).
hrm, not really one 100% sure, that a "super" lib is a good thing (tm)
-Matthias
>
> --Wolf
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com>.
On 29 Nov 2007, at 11:18, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 11:16 AM, Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see
>> tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I
>> would
>> prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
>
> weren't you saying they should be unified ?
-- I was (& still am), the quote levels got mixed up. (my bad, sorry)
I don't see why unifying Tomahawk and Trinidada could pose a problem
to someone. If there is a guarantee that the merger takes into account
a high level of backward compatibility, what more is there to do than
swapping jars and prefixes? This could even be done automatically -
and obviously run tests again, just to be sure.
Why am I for a unification?
The reality is that all of us have very little or no time, this is the
single biggest project bottleneck. Therefore, having to divide this
precious time over several subprojects (with often redundant
functionality) seems to me a sorry waste of scarce resources, and thus
hurting all MF subproject lines.
Take an example: most people would agree facelets is good idea. The
Jsf 1.2 spec is out since May 11, 2006. We're 1,5 yr(one and a half
year!) further down the line but there is no working combination for
MF1.2 + Facelets + Tomahawk 2.0 (the latter, I've been told, is in
line with the MF 1.2 release , and indeed, I've had worse problems
using Toma 116 or 117 + MF1.2 + Facelets)
1,5 year. For those disagreeing: check this mailing list or the posted
bugs: they're about basic stuff not working.
Frankly I'm cornered with bugs for this combination to the extend I
will have to downgrade again to MF1.1. For a new project that I
started half a yr ago. This is sad.
I like Matthias's idea of a common base best. I hope the Toma/Trini
shells on top of it can be made very thin on the sort term (would be
very OO-spirited as well).
On the mid/long: this would allow to diverge between stable and
development components, kinda like Tomahawk and Sandbox now.
But of the stable components, I am convinced the best approach is to
have them all at verybody's disposal with just one prefix (it even
sounds obvious no? Or am I the only one).
--Wolf
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Nov 29, 2007 11:16 AM, Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see
> tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I would
> prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
weren't you saying they should be unified ?
>
> -- Then I'm sure you're not working with the combo MF1.2 + Facelets +
> Tomahawk 2.0 because that's a joke. Even selectOneMenu's don't work
> properly. (have a look at the posted bugs)
I am pretty sure, mario is!
>
> -W
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> -- Then I'm sure you're not working with the combo MF1.2 + Facelets +
> Tomahawk 2.0 because that's a joke. Even selectOneMenu's don't work
> properly. (have a look at the posted bugs)
Dont know what Tomahawk 2.0 is, but this is the list of libraries we use
(-dev means they are home-made snapshots):
# ls -l *tom* *face*
-rw-rw-r-- 1 im LINPDC+domain users 300600 19. Okt 08:50
jsf-facelets-1.1.13.jar
-rw-rw-r-- 1 im LINPDC+domain users 322211 15. Nov 16:57
myfaces-api-1.2.1-dev.jar
-rw-rw-r-- 1 im LINPDC+domain users 699188 15. Nov 16:57
myfaces-impl-1.2.1-dev.jar
-rw-rw-r-- 1 im LINPDC+domain users 344329 27. Nov 08:55
myfaces-orchestra-core-1.1-dev.jar
-rw-rw-r-- 1 im LINPDC+domain users 125494 15. Nov 16:57
myfaces-orchestra-core15-1.0-dev.jar
-rw-rw-r-- 1 im LINPDC+domain users 18862 15. Nov 16:57
myfaces-orchestra-sandbox-1.0-dev.jar
-rw-rw-r-- 1 im LINPDC+domain users 2962767 15. Nov 16:57
tomahawk-1.1.7-dev.jar
-rw-rw-r-- 1 im LINPDC+domain users 646879 15. Nov 16:57
tomahawk-sandbox-1.1.7-dev.jar
-rw-rw-r-- 1 im LINPDC+domain users 104081 15. Nov 16:57
tomahawk-sandbox15-1.1.7-dev.jar
We are going into production with this ....
Ciao,
Mario
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com>.
We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see
tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I would
prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
-- Then I'm sure you're not working with the combo MF1.2 + Facelets +
Tomahawk 2.0 because that's a joke. Even selectOneMenu's don't work
properly. (have a look at the posted bugs)
-W
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Nov 29, 2007 11:00 AM, Michael Heinen <mh...@recommind.com> wrote:
> I am using tomahawk for nearly two years now and don't plan to migrate
> to Trinidad with existing projects.
> I am afraid that Tomahawk could be a showstopper for a migration from
> myFaces 1.1.5 to 1.2.1.
we should add this point to our agenda, for the hackaton.
To be honest, my personal thinking is, that JSF 1.2 is kind of not
really needed...
Most enviroments are fine with a 1.1 impl + facelets.
JSF 2.0 will bring real value to the table
>
> A rough myFaces roadmap would be highly appreciated for development
> plans.
>
> Michael
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mwessendorf@gmail.com [mailto:mwessendorf@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Matthias Wessendorf
> Sent: Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 09:02
> To: MyFaces Discussion
> Subject: Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
>
> glad to hear!
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 8:56 AM, Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are more and more switching to jsf and tomahawk here, The stuff
> rocks :)
> >
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 8:40 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > On Nov 29, 2007 7:57 AM, Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see
> > > > tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I
> would
> > > > prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
> > >
> > > Putting them on-top of Trinidad is only one option.
> > > IMO the commons project will help alot and keeping Tomahawk separate
> > > might be a valid option too.
> > >
> > > I know that there are several projects that use them, and that like
> them.
> > > Sometimes you hear noise, but you know, you complain vs. 99 good
> feedbacks,
> > > the complain is what people outside remember... :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It might be good though to maybe find more developers to keep the
> > > > versions working and in sync with eachother. Shout if you need
> some
> > > > help.
> > >
> > > you are more than welcome!
> > > -M
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 10:35 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 PM, Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi List,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the last half year, it seems Tomahawk, despite some fine
> > > > > > components, is dead; the 2.0 release hasn't gotten off the
> ground for
> > > > > > al these months, and no one seems to be actively developing
> it.
> > > > > > Trinidad on the other hand seems to acquire more and more
> momentum.
> > > > >
> > > > > it looks like, more and more questions on Trinidad are asked on
> the lists,
> > > > > that is true. I'd not say that Tomahawk is dead; I think there
> are some known
> > > > > issues and work arounds for that (using it w/ myfaces 1.1.x).
> > > > > I know people use it and works fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, as Tomahawk has some really cool components Trinidada
> doesn't
> > > > > > have, and while there is for sure an overlap between the two,
> are
> > > > > > there any plans for getting rid of this project clutter and
> unifying
> > > > > > these two project lines, resulting in a focussed approach?
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right, when you say that Tomahawk has interesting
> components,
> > > > > that aren't available inside of Trinidad. But I'd not say, that
> Trinidad is not
> > > > > cool.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is my feeling the current approach hurts the MF project.
> There
> > > > > > already was quite some comment on TSS on the fact MF was
> really late
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there were some comments, but there will always comments on
> almost
> > > > > every project :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > > in implementing the 1.2 spec(I know, not only for tech
> reasons), but
> > > > > > that's not the only problem: there are all these subprojects
> (what to
> > > > > > advise to newbies? I really couldn't tell) and if you happen
> to
> > > > > > combine Facelets + MF 1.2 + Tomahawk, you're in for a
> debugging fest!
> > > > > > The list of issues seems endless. It's no fun anymore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore, in the view of the upcoming hackatron event in
> december,
> > > > > > could we share, here, some ideas/thoughts on
> possible/preferable
> > > > > > roapdmaps? I'd love to see
> > > > > > - a short term plan to address the Tomahawk 2.0 release
> > > > > > - a mid/long term plan to reduce project clutter (converge the
> > > > > > sublines!) We can move much faster and better, if focussed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding a Tomahawk 2.0 release (or project) I'd love to see it
> on-top of the
> > > > > Trinidad API / Framework (in JSF-version 1.2)
> > > > >
> > > > > Like pick the "good" / "cool" Tomahawk components, and put them
> into Trinidad.
> > > > > That needs some work, sure.
> > > > > Willing to help ?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Matthias
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Wolf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Ps I'm not pointing fingers here - I'm just genuinly
> concerned and
> > > > > > wondering how we could better pick things up from here)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > >
> > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> I am afraid that Tomahawk could be a showstopper for a migration from
> myFaces 1.1.5 to 1.2.1.
>
I use tomahawk here with MyFaces 1.2.x-head (with facelets). No real
problems here so far.
Ciao,
Mario
RE: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Michael Heinen <mh...@recommind.com>.
I am using tomahawk for nearly two years now and don't plan to migrate
to Trinidad with existing projects.
I am afraid that Tomahawk could be a showstopper for a migration from
myFaces 1.1.5 to 1.2.1.
A rough myFaces roadmap would be highly appreciated for development
plans.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: mwessendorf@gmail.com [mailto:mwessendorf@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Matthias Wessendorf
Sent: Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 09:02
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
glad to hear!
On Nov 29, 2007 8:56 AM, Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are more and more switching to jsf and tomahawk here, The stuff
rocks :)
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 8:40 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2007 7:57 AM, Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see
> > > tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I
would
> > > prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
> >
> > Putting them on-top of Trinidad is only one option.
> > IMO the commons project will help alot and keeping Tomahawk separate
> > might be a valid option too.
> >
> > I know that there are several projects that use them, and that like
them.
> > Sometimes you hear noise, but you know, you complain vs. 99 good
feedbacks,
> > the complain is what people outside remember... :-)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It might be good though to maybe find more developers to keep the
> > > versions working and in sync with eachother. Shout if you need
some
> > > help.
> >
> > you are more than welcome!
> > -M
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 28, 2007 10:35 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 PM, Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Hi List,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last half year, it seems Tomahawk, despite some fine
> > > > > components, is dead; the 2.0 release hasn't gotten off the
ground for
> > > > > al these months, and no one seems to be actively developing
it.
> > > > > Trinidad on the other hand seems to acquire more and more
momentum.
> > > >
> > > > it looks like, more and more questions on Trinidad are asked on
the lists,
> > > > that is true. I'd not say that Tomahawk is dead; I think there
are some known
> > > > issues and work arounds for that (using it w/ myfaces 1.1.x).
> > > > I know people use it and works fine.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, as Tomahawk has some really cool components Trinidada
doesn't
> > > > > have, and while there is for sure an overlap between the two,
are
> > > > > there any plans for getting rid of this project clutter and
unifying
> > > > > these two project lines, resulting in a focussed approach?
> > > >
> > > > You are right, when you say that Tomahawk has interesting
components,
> > > > that aren't available inside of Trinidad. But I'd not say, that
Trinidad is not
> > > > cool.
> > > >
> > > > > It is my feeling the current approach hurts the MF project.
There
> > > > > already was quite some comment on TSS on the fact MF was
really late
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there were some comments, but there will always comments on
almost
> > > > every project :-)
> > > >
> > > > > in implementing the 1.2 spec(I know, not only for tech
reasons), but
> > > > > that's not the only problem: there are all these subprojects
(what to
> > > > > advise to newbies? I really couldn't tell) and if you happen
to
> > > > > combine Facelets + MF 1.2 + Tomahawk, you're in for a
debugging fest!
> > > > > The list of issues seems endless. It's no fun anymore.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, in the view of the upcoming hackatron event in
december,
> > > > > could we share, here, some ideas/thoughts on
possible/preferable
> > > > > roapdmaps? I'd love to see
> > > > > - a short term plan to address the Tomahawk 2.0 release
> > > > > - a mid/long term plan to reduce project clutter (converge the
> > > > > sublines!) We can move much faster and better, if focussed.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding a Tomahawk 2.0 release (or project) I'd love to see it
on-top of the
> > > > Trinidad API / Framework (in JSF-version 1.2)
> > > >
> > > > Like pick the "good" / "cool" Tomahawk components, and put them
into Trinidad.
> > > > That needs some work, sure.
> > > > Willing to help ?
> > > >
> > > > -Matthias
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Wolf
> > > > >
> > > > > (Ps I'm not pointing fingers here - I'm just genuinly
concerned and
> > > > > wondering how we could better pick things up from here)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > >
> > > > further stuff:
> > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> I reject your reality and substitute my own
> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
glad to hear!
On Nov 29, 2007 8:56 AM, Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are more and more switching to jsf and tomahawk here, The stuff rocks :)
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 8:40 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2007 7:57 AM, Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see
> > > tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I would
> > > prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
> >
> > Putting them on-top of Trinidad is only one option.
> > IMO the commons project will help alot and keeping Tomahawk separate
> > might be a valid option too.
> >
> > I know that there are several projects that use them, and that like them.
> > Sometimes you hear noise, but you know, you complain vs. 99 good feedbacks,
> > the complain is what people outside remember... :-)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It might be good though to maybe find more developers to keep the
> > > versions working and in sync with eachother. Shout if you need some
> > > help.
> >
> > you are more than welcome!
> > -M
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 28, 2007 10:35 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 PM, Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi List,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last half year, it seems Tomahawk, despite some fine
> > > > > components, is dead; the 2.0 release hasn't gotten off the ground for
> > > > > al these months, and no one seems to be actively developing it.
> > > > > Trinidad on the other hand seems to acquire more and more momentum.
> > > >
> > > > it looks like, more and more questions on Trinidad are asked on the lists,
> > > > that is true. I'd not say that Tomahawk is dead; I think there are some known
> > > > issues and work arounds for that (using it w/ myfaces 1.1.x).
> > > > I know people use it and works fine.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, as Tomahawk has some really cool components Trinidada doesn't
> > > > > have, and while there is for sure an overlap between the two, are
> > > > > there any plans for getting rid of this project clutter and unifying
> > > > > these two project lines, resulting in a focussed approach?
> > > >
> > > > You are right, when you say that Tomahawk has interesting components,
> > > > that aren't available inside of Trinidad. But I'd not say, that Trinidad is not
> > > > cool.
> > > >
> > > > > It is my feeling the current approach hurts the MF project. There
> > > > > already was quite some comment on TSS on the fact MF was really late
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there were some comments, but there will always comments on almost
> > > > every project :-)
> > > >
> > > > > in implementing the 1.2 spec(I know, not only for tech reasons), but
> > > > > that's not the only problem: there are all these subprojects (what to
> > > > > advise to newbies? I really couldn't tell) and if you happen to
> > > > > combine Facelets + MF 1.2 + Tomahawk, you're in for a debugging fest!
> > > > > The list of issues seems endless. It's no fun anymore.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, in the view of the upcoming hackatron event in december,
> > > > > could we share, here, some ideas/thoughts on possible/preferable
> > > > > roapdmaps? I'd love to see
> > > > > - a short term plan to address the Tomahawk 2.0 release
> > > > > - a mid/long term plan to reduce project clutter (converge the
> > > > > sublines!) We can move much faster and better, if focussed.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding a Tomahawk 2.0 release (or project) I'd love to see it on-top of the
> > > > Trinidad API / Framework (in JSF-version 1.2)
> > > >
> > > > Like pick the "good" / "cool" Tomahawk components, and put them into Trinidad.
> > > > That needs some work, sure.
> > > > Willing to help ?
> > > >
> > > > -Matthias
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Wolf
> > > > >
> > > > > (Ps I'm not pointing fingers here - I'm just genuinly concerned and
> > > > > wondering how we could better pick things up from here)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > >
> > > > further stuff:
> > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> I reject your reality and substitute my own
> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com>.
We are more and more switching to jsf and tomahawk here, The stuff rocks :)
On Nov 29, 2007 8:40 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 7:57 AM, Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see
> > tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I would
> > prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
>
> Putting them on-top of Trinidad is only one option.
> IMO the commons project will help alot and keeping Tomahawk separate
> might be a valid option too.
>
> I know that there are several projects that use them, and that like them.
> Sometimes you hear noise, but you know, you complain vs. 99 good feedbacks,
> the complain is what people outside remember... :-)
>
>
> >
> > It might be good though to maybe find more developers to keep the
> > versions working and in sync with eachother. Shout if you need some
> > help.
>
> you are more than welcome!
> -M
>
>
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 10:35 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 PM, Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi List,
> > > >
> > > > Over the last half year, it seems Tomahawk, despite some fine
> > > > components, is dead; the 2.0 release hasn't gotten off the ground for
> > > > al these months, and no one seems to be actively developing it.
> > > > Trinidad on the other hand seems to acquire more and more momentum.
> > >
> > > it looks like, more and more questions on Trinidad are asked on the lists,
> > > that is true. I'd not say that Tomahawk is dead; I think there are some known
> > > issues and work arounds for that (using it w/ myfaces 1.1.x).
> > > I know people use it and works fine.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, as Tomahawk has some really cool components Trinidada doesn't
> > > > have, and while there is for sure an overlap between the two, are
> > > > there any plans for getting rid of this project clutter and unifying
> > > > these two project lines, resulting in a focussed approach?
> > >
> > > You are right, when you say that Tomahawk has interesting components,
> > > that aren't available inside of Trinidad. But I'd not say, that Trinidad is not
> > > cool.
> > >
> > > > It is my feeling the current approach hurts the MF project. There
> > > > already was quite some comment on TSS on the fact MF was really late
> > >
> > > Yes, there were some comments, but there will always comments on almost
> > > every project :-)
> > >
> > > > in implementing the 1.2 spec(I know, not only for tech reasons), but
> > > > that's not the only problem: there are all these subprojects (what to
> > > > advise to newbies? I really couldn't tell) and if you happen to
> > > > combine Facelets + MF 1.2 + Tomahawk, you're in for a debugging fest!
> > > > The list of issues seems endless. It's no fun anymore.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, in the view of the upcoming hackatron event in december,
> > > > could we share, here, some ideas/thoughts on possible/preferable
> > > > roapdmaps? I'd love to see
> > > > - a short term plan to address the Tomahawk 2.0 release
> > > > - a mid/long term plan to reduce project clutter (converge the
> > > > sublines!) We can move much faster and better, if focussed.
> > >
> > > Regarding a Tomahawk 2.0 release (or project) I'd love to see it on-top of the
> > > Trinidad API / Framework (in JSF-version 1.2)
> > >
> > > Like pick the "good" / "cool" Tomahawk components, and put them into Trinidad.
> > > That needs some work, sure.
> > > Willing to help ?
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -Wolf
> > > >
> > > > (Ps I'm not pointing fingers here - I'm just genuinly concerned and
> > > > wondering how we could better pick things up from here)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
--
I reject your reality and substitute my own
--- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Nov 29, 2007 7:57 AM, Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see
> tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I would
> prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
Putting them on-top of Trinidad is only one option.
IMO the commons project will help alot and keeping Tomahawk separate
might be a valid option too.
I know that there are several projects that use them, and that like them.
Sometimes you hear noise, but you know, you complain vs. 99 good feedbacks,
the complain is what people outside remember... :-)
>
> It might be good though to maybe find more developers to keep the
> versions working and in sync with eachother. Shout if you need some
> help.
you are more than welcome!
-M
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2007 10:35 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 PM, Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi List,
> > >
> > > Over the last half year, it seems Tomahawk, despite some fine
> > > components, is dead; the 2.0 release hasn't gotten off the ground for
> > > al these months, and no one seems to be actively developing it.
> > > Trinidad on the other hand seems to acquire more and more momentum.
> >
> > it looks like, more and more questions on Trinidad are asked on the lists,
> > that is true. I'd not say that Tomahawk is dead; I think there are some known
> > issues and work arounds for that (using it w/ myfaces 1.1.x).
> > I know people use it and works fine.
> >
> > >
> > > Now, as Tomahawk has some really cool components Trinidada doesn't
> > > have, and while there is for sure an overlap between the two, are
> > > there any plans for getting rid of this project clutter and unifying
> > > these two project lines, resulting in a focussed approach?
> >
> > You are right, when you say that Tomahawk has interesting components,
> > that aren't available inside of Trinidad. But I'd not say, that Trinidad is not
> > cool.
> >
> > > It is my feeling the current approach hurts the MF project. There
> > > already was quite some comment on TSS on the fact MF was really late
> >
> > Yes, there were some comments, but there will always comments on almost
> > every project :-)
> >
> > > in implementing the 1.2 spec(I know, not only for tech reasons), but
> > > that's not the only problem: there are all these subprojects (what to
> > > advise to newbies? I really couldn't tell) and if you happen to
> > > combine Facelets + MF 1.2 + Tomahawk, you're in for a debugging fest!
> > > The list of issues seems endless. It's no fun anymore.
> > >
> > > Therefore, in the view of the upcoming hackatron event in december,
> > > could we share, here, some ideas/thoughts on possible/preferable
> > > roapdmaps? I'd love to see
> > > - a short term plan to address the Tomahawk 2.0 release
> > > - a mid/long term plan to reduce project clutter (converge the
> > > sublines!) We can move much faster and better, if focussed.
> >
> > Regarding a Tomahawk 2.0 release (or project) I'd love to see it on-top of the
> > Trinidad API / Framework (in JSF-version 1.2)
> >
> > Like pick the "good" / "cool" Tomahawk components, and put them into Trinidad.
> > That needs some work, sure.
> > Willing to help ?
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -Wolf
> > >
> > > (Ps I'm not pointing fingers here - I'm just genuinly concerned and
> > > wondering how we could better pick things up from here)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> I reject your reality and substitute my own
> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com>.
We use Tomahawk a lot in several projects. I would not like to see
tomahawk getting swallowed up in trinidad. Each has its place. I would
prefer to seem the stay the way they are.
It might be good though to maybe find more developers to keep the
versions working and in sync with eachother. Shout if you need some
help.
Ron
On Nov 28, 2007 10:35 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 PM, Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi List,
> >
> > Over the last half year, it seems Tomahawk, despite some fine
> > components, is dead; the 2.0 release hasn't gotten off the ground for
> > al these months, and no one seems to be actively developing it.
> > Trinidad on the other hand seems to acquire more and more momentum.
>
> it looks like, more and more questions on Trinidad are asked on the lists,
> that is true. I'd not say that Tomahawk is dead; I think there are some known
> issues and work arounds for that (using it w/ myfaces 1.1.x).
> I know people use it and works fine.
>
> >
> > Now, as Tomahawk has some really cool components Trinidada doesn't
> > have, and while there is for sure an overlap between the two, are
> > there any plans for getting rid of this project clutter and unifying
> > these two project lines, resulting in a focussed approach?
>
> You are right, when you say that Tomahawk has interesting components,
> that aren't available inside of Trinidad. But I'd not say, that Trinidad is not
> cool.
>
> > It is my feeling the current approach hurts the MF project. There
> > already was quite some comment on TSS on the fact MF was really late
>
> Yes, there were some comments, but there will always comments on almost
> every project :-)
>
> > in implementing the 1.2 spec(I know, not only for tech reasons), but
> > that's not the only problem: there are all these subprojects (what to
> > advise to newbies? I really couldn't tell) and if you happen to
> > combine Facelets + MF 1.2 + Tomahawk, you're in for a debugging fest!
> > The list of issues seems endless. It's no fun anymore.
> >
> > Therefore, in the view of the upcoming hackatron event in december,
> > could we share, here, some ideas/thoughts on possible/preferable
> > roapdmaps? I'd love to see
> > - a short term plan to address the Tomahawk 2.0 release
> > - a mid/long term plan to reduce project clutter (converge the
> > sublines!) We can move much faster and better, if focussed.
>
> Regarding a Tomahawk 2.0 release (or project) I'd love to see it on-top of the
> Trinidad API / Framework (in JSF-version 1.2)
>
> Like pick the "good" / "cool" Tomahawk components, and put them into Trinidad.
> That needs some work, sure.
> Willing to help ?
>
> -Matthias
>
>
> >
> > -Wolf
> >
> > (Ps I'm not pointing fingers here - I'm just genuinly concerned and
> > wondering how we could better pick things up from here)
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
--
I reject your reality and substitute my own
--- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
Re: Future Focus Question: Tomahawk or Trinidad
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Nov 28, 2007 10:20 PM, Philippe Lamote <eu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> Over the last half year, it seems Tomahawk, despite some fine
> components, is dead; the 2.0 release hasn't gotten off the ground for
> al these months, and no one seems to be actively developing it.
> Trinidad on the other hand seems to acquire more and more momentum.
it looks like, more and more questions on Trinidad are asked on the lists,
that is true. I'd not say that Tomahawk is dead; I think there are some known
issues and work arounds for that (using it w/ myfaces 1.1.x).
I know people use it and works fine.
>
> Now, as Tomahawk has some really cool components Trinidada doesn't
> have, and while there is for sure an overlap between the two, are
> there any plans for getting rid of this project clutter and unifying
> these two project lines, resulting in a focussed approach?
You are right, when you say that Tomahawk has interesting components,
that aren't available inside of Trinidad. But I'd not say, that Trinidad is not
cool.
> It is my feeling the current approach hurts the MF project. There
> already was quite some comment on TSS on the fact MF was really late
Yes, there were some comments, but there will always comments on almost
every project :-)
> in implementing the 1.2 spec(I know, not only for tech reasons), but
> that's not the only problem: there are all these subprojects (what to
> advise to newbies? I really couldn't tell) and if you happen to
> combine Facelets + MF 1.2 + Tomahawk, you're in for a debugging fest!
> The list of issues seems endless. It's no fun anymore.
>
> Therefore, in the view of the upcoming hackatron event in december,
> could we share, here, some ideas/thoughts on possible/preferable
> roapdmaps? I'd love to see
> - a short term plan to address the Tomahawk 2.0 release
> - a mid/long term plan to reduce project clutter (converge the
> sublines!) We can move much faster and better, if focussed.
Regarding a Tomahawk 2.0 release (or project) I'd love to see it on-top of the
Trinidad API / Framework (in JSF-version 1.2)
Like pick the "good" / "cool" Tomahawk components, and put them into Trinidad.
That needs some work, sure.
Willing to help ?
-Matthias
>
> -Wolf
>
> (Ps I'm not pointing fingers here - I'm just genuinly concerned and
> wondering how we could better pick things up from here)
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org