You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@matthias-wessendorf.de> on 2005/01/28 07:56:18 UTC
[JAR] myfaces.jar
Hi all,
I got email from Jonas (Oracle) and he asked why we provide
myfaces.jar and a standalone version (api, extention, impl, wml)
I remember, that we did a split in *old* SF codebase. Craig
mentioned splitting them should be cleaner.
But now there is again a myfaces.jar and also the
standalone version.
(http://tinyurl.com/4skb6)
Shouldn't we better keep the separate instead a all-in-one
JAR?
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Matthias
Re: [JAR] myfaces.jar
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:00:46 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf
<ma...@matthias-wessendorf.de> wrote:
> Yes, I use also the myfaces.jar
>
> But Jonas and also Craig where mentioning,
> that a split will be *cleaner*
Cleaner isn't really the primary motivation ... but any app's
build.xml file that is using the JSF RI will have pointers to two JAR
files (jsf-api.jar and jsf-impl.jar) ... having the API and
implementation JARs split for MyFaces makes it easier for such a
script to be adapted to use MyFaces instead.
Craig
Re: [JAR] myfaces.jar
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@matthias-wessendorf.de>.
Yes, I use also the myfaces.jar
But Jonas and also Craig where mentioning,
that a split will be *cleaner*
Perhaps Jonas or Craig could pointed
out to your list...
-Matthias
Heath Borders wrote:
> I also use the combined jar for those reasons.
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:39:15 -0500, Sean Schofield
> <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I use the combined jar for the same reasons as Bruno.
>>
>>sean
>>
>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:26:13 +0100, Martin Marinschek
>><ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>yes, I would say that, too...
>>>
>>>is there any problem in providing both?
>>>
>>>regards,
>>>
>>>Martin
>>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:59:10 +0100 (CET), Bruno Aranda - Dev
>>><br...@ebiointel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>In my opinion it is ok to have both alternatives. I use the all-in-one
>>>>because I build from cvs very often and it is easier to replace my *old*
>>>>myfaces.jar...
>>>>
>>>>Bruno
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>I got email from Jonas (Oracle) and he asked why we provide
>>>>>myfaces.jar and a standalone version (api, extention, impl, wml)
>>>>>
>>>>>I remember, that we did a split in *old* SF codebase. Craig
>>>>>mentioned splitting them should be cleaner.
>>>>>
>>>>>But now there is again a myfaces.jar and also the
>>>>>standalone version.
>>>>>(http://tinyurl.com/4skb6)
>>>>>
>>>>>Shouldn't we better keep the separate instead a all-in-one
>>>>>JAR?
>>>>>
>>>>>Any thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
--
Matthias Weßendorf
Aechterhoek 18
DE-48282 Emsdetten
Germany
phone: +49-2572-9170275
cell phone: +49-179-1118979
email: matzew AT apache DOT org
url: http://www.wessendorf.net
callto://mwessendorf (Skype)
icq: 47016183
Re: [JAR] myfaces.jar
Posted by Heath Borders <he...@gmail.com>.
I also use the combined jar for those reasons.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:39:15 -0500, Sean Schofield
<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I use the combined jar for the same reasons as Bruno.
>
> sean
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:26:13 +0100, Martin Marinschek
> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yes, I would say that, too...
> >
> > is there any problem in providing both?
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:59:10 +0100 (CET), Bruno Aranda - Dev
> > <br...@ebiointel.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > In my opinion it is ok to have both alternatives. I use the all-in-one
> > > because I build from cvs very often and it is easier to replace my *old*
> > > myfaces.jar...
> > >
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I got email from Jonas (Oracle) and he asked why we provide
> > > > myfaces.jar and a standalone version (api, extention, impl, wml)
> > > >
> > > > I remember, that we did a split in *old* SF codebase. Craig
> > > > mentioned splitting them should be cleaner.
> > > >
> > > > But now there is again a myfaces.jar and also the
> > > > standalone version.
> > > > (http://tinyurl.com/4skb6)
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't we better keep the separate instead a all-in-one
> > > > JAR?
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Matthias
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
-Heath Borders-Wing
hborders@mail.win.org
Re: [JAR] myfaces.jar
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
I use the combined jar for the same reasons as Bruno.
sean
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:26:13 +0100, Martin Marinschek
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, I would say that, too...
>
> is there any problem in providing both?
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:59:10 +0100 (CET), Bruno Aranda - Dev
> <br...@ebiointel.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In my opinion it is ok to have both alternatives. I use the all-in-one
> > because I build from cvs very often and it is easier to replace my *old*
> > myfaces.jar...
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I got email from Jonas (Oracle) and he asked why we provide
> > > myfaces.jar and a standalone version (api, extention, impl, wml)
> > >
> > > I remember, that we did a split in *old* SF codebase. Craig
> > > mentioned splitting them should be cleaner.
> > >
> > > But now there is again a myfaces.jar and also the
> > > standalone version.
> > > (http://tinyurl.com/4skb6)
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we better keep the separate instead a all-in-one
> > > JAR?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Matthias
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [JAR] myfaces.jar
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
yes, I would say that, too...
is there any problem in providing both?
regards,
Martin
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:59:10 +0100 (CET), Bruno Aranda - Dev
<br...@ebiointel.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my opinion it is ok to have both alternatives. I use the all-in-one
> because I build from cvs very often and it is easier to replace my *old*
> myfaces.jar...
>
> Bruno
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I got email from Jonas (Oracle) and he asked why we provide
> > myfaces.jar and a standalone version (api, extention, impl, wml)
> >
> > I remember, that we did a split in *old* SF codebase. Craig
> > mentioned splitting them should be cleaner.
> >
> > But now there is again a myfaces.jar and also the
> > standalone version.
> > (http://tinyurl.com/4skb6)
> >
> > Shouldn't we better keep the separate instead a all-in-one
> > JAR?
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matthias
> >
>
>
Re: [JAR] myfaces.jar
Posted by Bruno Aranda - Dev <br...@ebiointel.com>.
Hi,
In my opinion it is ok to have both alternatives. I use the all-in-one
because I build from cvs very often and it is easier to replace my *old*
myfaces.jar...
Bruno
> Hi all,
>
> I got email from Jonas (Oracle) and he asked why we provide
> myfaces.jar and a standalone version (api, extention, impl, wml)
>
> I remember, that we did a split in *old* SF codebase. Craig
> mentioned splitting them should be cleaner.
>
> But now there is again a myfaces.jar and also the
> standalone version.
> (http://tinyurl.com/4skb6)
>
> Shouldn't we better keep the separate instead a all-in-one
> JAR?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Matthias
>