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...@apache.org> on 2007/12/06 08:34:32 UTC
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
to bring light to this discussion;
On Oct 24, 2007 8:15 AM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For me, a merger makes sense.
>
> The question is who will do the work, though.
yup! That's right.
>
> Some reflections on the modules:
>
> - ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense
> here (the notion of subflows which
I think the Orchestra VC is pretty solid, right now; I personally like it more.
What potential makes sense (as an addition) is the Dialog mgr
+ the XML-W3C-thing (forgot the name :-) )
> - Clay: Yes, obviously Facelets has won the race - we should all
> concentrate our efforts there, so that the JSF community can profit as
> a whole (and is not splitted)
yes, no need for that, sorry to say.
> - Tiger-extensions: again, this would make sense in Orchestra, as an
> alternative way of configuring Orchestras beans (and also other beans,
> of course) to using Spring
for the discussion I have the understanding, that Tiger will be used as
JSF2 @nnotation solution. We should take that bit for the next impl... :)
> - test-framework: we've long used it in MyFaces, but for recent tests
> both Matthias and me have used EasyMock, it is somewhat easier to
> define changing interface behaviour with EasyMock than with static
> mock-classes. Still, this is valuable, and should be a separate module
> in the merger.
> - validators - no, probably not really
please no
> - s:token: I'd love to have a generic way of preventing duplicated
> posts. But I guess this is something that Orchestra could eventually
> handle?
>
> apart from that, I don't know much more about Shale - sorry.
other bits, that were discussed were:
-AppController
looks like nobody is really interested in this
-Remoting
sounds like a nice enhancement; and may be JSF 2.0 (as mentioned by
some folks here)
-Spring-Integration
no need for that
(Did I miss a module?)
It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
I am +1 on that.
I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
-Dialog
-Remoting
-Test
-Tiger
-ViewController
What happens to the rest?
I don't know;
Will they be maintained ?
I don't know;
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 10/22/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Ok, so what about having a 'myfaces dormant' project where each module gets
> > added where it seems there is no real maintainer.
> > This could be a place for abandoned sandbox stuff too.
> > I know, the word 'maintainer' is not well placed in the context of an apache
> > community, but in the end I think it would be fair to show to users that no
> > one is really working on an project.
> >
> >
> > Mario
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Grant Smith" <wo...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Monday, Okt 22, 2007 6:02 pm
> > Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <de...@myfaces.apache.org>To: "MyFaces
> > Development" <de...@myfaces.apache.org>
> >
> > Conceptually, I am in favor of a merge. I wouldn't wait for JSF 2.0 to do
> > it, though. +1.
> > >
> > >
> > >On 10/22/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:At least, 1
> > year, that is my guess.
> > >
> > >So, I agree w/ Kito here
> > >
> > >-M
> > >
> > >On 10/22/07, Kito D. Mann <km...@virtua.com> wrote:
> > >> I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or more
> > away....
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > >> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> > >> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:bernhard.slominski@zooplus.com]
> > >> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM
> > >> > To: 'dev@shale.apache.org'; MyFaces Development
> > >> > Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
> > >> > So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting) should not
> > >> > move,
> > >> > but just stay in Shale.
> > >> > Also let's see where templating and component development goes before
> > >> > making
> > >> > a decision about Clay.
> > >> > So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it comes to JSF 2
> > >> > all
> > >> > Add-Ons move to MyFaces.
> > >> >
> > >> > Bernhard
> > >> >
> > >> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >> > > Von: craigmcc@gmail.com [mailto:craigmcc@gmail.com]Im Auftrag
> > >> > > von Craig
> > >> > > McClanahan
> > >> > > Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 01:48
> > >> > > An: MyFaces Development; Shale Developers List
> > >> > > Betreff: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > * Remoting
> > >> > > > > Unsure, as most of this can be done with PPR too.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > +1 This is pretty useful and easy to use, and will affect JSF 2.0.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > A secondary benefit is near-zero config for resource access,
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
we can do that. I'd also like to see this (sub)project stays alive,
at Apache ;-)
I am not sure, if we need the infra@ guys for the mv.
-M
On Dec 6, 2007 3:54 PM, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> Their is a feature in the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework that reads
> the implementation's configuration, i.e. faces.xml, when setting up the
> environment. This feature is valuable when testing against different
> implementations, i.e. RI 1.1. In tomahawk 1.1.x, I hard coded some of
> the configuration to enable some of the component testing. This hard
> coding fails when testing against the RI. At one time I did modify the
> test to use the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework to run the tests
> against the RI, but I never committed the works because I did not want
> to introduce a SNAPSHOT dependency. Move the test-framework into
> MyFaces and I will commit the work.
>
> I request that test-framework be moved into MyFace.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
>
>
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > to bring light to this discussion;
> >
> > On Oct 24, 2007 8:15 AM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> For me, a merger makes sense.
> >>
> >> The question is who will do the work, though.
> >
> > yup! That's right.
> >
> >> Some reflections on the modules:
> >>
> >> - ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense
> >> here (the notion of subflows which
> >
> > I think the Orchestra VC is pretty solid, right now; I personally like it more.
> > What potential makes sense (as an addition) is the Dialog mgr
> > + the XML-W3C-thing (forgot the name :-) )
> >
> >> - Clay: Yes, obviously Facelets has won the race - we should all
> >> concentrate our efforts there, so that the JSF community can profit as
> >> a whole (and is not splitted)
> >
> > yes, no need for that, sorry to say.
> >
> >> - Tiger-extensions: again, this would make sense in Orchestra, as an
> >> alternative way of configuring Orchestras beans (and also other beans,
> >> of course) to using Spring
> >
> > for the discussion I have the understanding, that Tiger will be used as
> > JSF2 @nnotation solution. We should take that bit for the next impl... :)
> >
> >> - test-framework: we've long used it in MyFaces, but for recent tests
> >> both Matthias and me have used EasyMock, it is somewhat easier to
> >> define changing interface behaviour with EasyMock than with static
> >> mock-classes. Still, this is valuable, and should be a separate module
> >> in the merger.
> >> - validators - no, probably not really
> >
> > please no
> >
> >> - s:token: I'd love to have a generic way of preventing duplicated
> >> posts. But I guess this is something that Orchestra could eventually
> >> handle?
> >>
> >> apart from that, I don't know much more about Shale - sorry.
> >
> > other bits, that were discussed were:
> > -AppController
> > looks like nobody is really interested in this
> > -Remoting
> > sounds like a nice enhancement; and may be JSF 2.0 (as mentioned by
> > some folks here)
> > -Spring-Integration
> > no need for that
> >
> > (Did I miss a module?)
> >
> >
> > It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> > I am +1 on that.
> >
> > I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> > I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> > -Dialog
> > -Remoting
> > -Test
> > -Tiger
> > -ViewController
> >
> > What happens to the rest?
> > I don't know;
> > Will they be maintained ?
> > I don't know;
> >
> >
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/22/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> >>> Ok, so what about having a 'myfaces dormant' project where each module gets
> >>> added where it seems there is no real maintainer.
> >>> This could be a place for abandoned sandbox stuff too.
> >>> I know, the word 'maintainer' is not well placed in the context of an apache
> >>> community, but in the end I think it would be fair to show to users that no
> >>> one is really working on an project.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mario
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: "Grant Smith" <wo...@gmail.com>
> >>> Date: Monday, Okt 22, 2007 6:02 pm
> >>> Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> >>> To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <de...@myfaces.apache.org>To: "MyFaces
> >>> Development" <de...@myfaces.apache.org>
> >>>
> >>> Conceptually, I am in favor of a merge. I wouldn't wait for JSF 2.0 to do
> >>> it, though. +1.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/22/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:At least, 1
> >>> year, that is my guess.
> >>>> So, I agree w/ Kito here
> >>>>
> >>>> -M
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/22/07, Kito D. Mann <km...@virtua.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or more
> >>> away....
> >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> >>>>> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> >>>>> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:bernhard.slominski@zooplus.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM
> >>>>>> To: 'dev@shale.apache.org'; MyFaces Development
> >>>>>> Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
> >>>>>> So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting) should not
> >>>>>> move,
> >>>>>> but just stay in Shale.
> >>>>>> Also let's see where templating and component development goes before
> >>>>>> making
> >>>>>> a decision about Clay.
> >>>>>> So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it comes to JSF 2
> >>>>>> all
> >>>>>> Add-Ons move to MyFaces.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bernhard
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>>>>> Von: craigmcc@gmail.com [mailto:craigmcc@gmail.com]Im Auftrag
> >>>>>>> von Craig
> >>>>>>> McClanahan
> >>>>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 01:48
> >>>>>>> An: MyFaces Development; Shale Developers List
> >>>>>>> Betreff: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * Remoting
> >>>>>>>>> Unsure, as most of this can be done with PPR too.
> >>>>>>>> +1 This is pretty useful and easy to use, and will affect JSF 2.0.
> >>>>>>> A secondary benefit is near-zero config for resource access,
> >>>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> http://www.irian.at
> >>
> >> Your JSF powerhouse -
> >> JSF Consulting, Development and
> >> Courses in English and German
> >>
> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
RE: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by "Jesse Alexander (KSFH 323)" <al...@credit-suisse.com>.
-----Original Message-----
Their is a feature in the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework that reads
the implementation's configuration, i.e. faces.xml, when setting up the
environment. This feature is valuable when testing against different
implementations, i.e. RI 1.1. In tomahawk 1.1.x, I hard coded some of
the configuration to enable some of the component testing. This hard
coding fails when testing against the RI. At one time I did modify the
test to use the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework to run the tests
against the RI, but I never committed the works because I did not want
to introduce a SNAPSHOT dependency. Move the test-framework into
MyFaces and I will commit the work.
-----/Original Message-----
That kind of testing framework-feature is worth a lot. Makes setting up
the
testing-environment somewhat easier...
regards
Alexander
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Their is a feature in the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework that reads
the implementation's configuration, i.e. faces.xml, when setting up the
environment. This feature is valuable when testing against different
implementations, i.e. RI 1.1. In tomahawk 1.1.x, I hard coded some of
the configuration to enable some of the component testing. This hard
coding fails when testing against the RI. At one time I did modify the
test to use the SNAPSHOT version of test-framework to run the tests
against the RI, but I never committed the works because I did not want
to introduce a SNAPSHOT dependency. Move the test-framework into
MyFaces and I will commit the work.
I request that test-framework be moved into MyFace.
Paul Spencer
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> to bring light to this discussion;
>
> On Oct 24, 2007 8:15 AM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For me, a merger makes sense.
>>
>> The question is who will do the work, though.
>
> yup! That's right.
>
>> Some reflections on the modules:
>>
>> - ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense
>> here (the notion of subflows which
>
> I think the Orchestra VC is pretty solid, right now; I personally like it more.
> What potential makes sense (as an addition) is the Dialog mgr
> + the XML-W3C-thing (forgot the name :-) )
>
>> - Clay: Yes, obviously Facelets has won the race - we should all
>> concentrate our efforts there, so that the JSF community can profit as
>> a whole (and is not splitted)
>
> yes, no need for that, sorry to say.
>
>> - Tiger-extensions: again, this would make sense in Orchestra, as an
>> alternative way of configuring Orchestras beans (and also other beans,
>> of course) to using Spring
>
> for the discussion I have the understanding, that Tiger will be used as
> JSF2 @nnotation solution. We should take that bit for the next impl... :)
>
>> - test-framework: we've long used it in MyFaces, but for recent tests
>> both Matthias and me have used EasyMock, it is somewhat easier to
>> define changing interface behaviour with EasyMock than with static
>> mock-classes. Still, this is valuable, and should be a separate module
>> in the merger.
>> - validators - no, probably not really
>
> please no
>
>> - s:token: I'd love to have a generic way of preventing duplicated
>> posts. But I guess this is something that Orchestra could eventually
>> handle?
>>
>> apart from that, I don't know much more about Shale - sorry.
>
> other bits, that were discussed were:
> -AppController
> looks like nobody is really interested in this
> -Remoting
> sounds like a nice enhancement; and may be JSF 2.0 (as mentioned by
> some folks here)
> -Spring-Integration
> no need for that
>
> (Did I miss a module?)
>
>
> It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> I am +1 on that.
>
> I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> -Dialog
> -Remoting
> -Test
> -Tiger
> -ViewController
>
> What happens to the rest?
> I don't know;
> Will they be maintained ?
> I don't know;
>
>
>> regards,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On 10/22/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
>>> Ok, so what about having a 'myfaces dormant' project where each module gets
>>> added where it seems there is no real maintainer.
>>> This could be a place for abandoned sandbox stuff too.
>>> I know, the word 'maintainer' is not well placed in the context of an apache
>>> community, but in the end I think it would be fair to show to users that no
>>> one is really working on an project.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mario
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "Grant Smith" <wo...@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Monday, Okt 22, 2007 6:02 pm
>>> Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
>>> To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <de...@myfaces.apache.org>To: "MyFaces
>>> Development" <de...@myfaces.apache.org>
>>>
>>> Conceptually, I am in favor of a merge. I wouldn't wait for JSF 2.0 to do
>>> it, though. +1.
>>>>
>>>> On 10/22/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:At least, 1
>>> year, that is my guess.
>>>> So, I agree w/ Kito here
>>>>
>>>> -M
>>>>
>>>> On 10/22/07, Kito D. Mann <km...@virtua.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or more
>>> away....
>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
>>>>> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
>>>>> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:bernhard.slominski@zooplus.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM
>>>>>> To: 'dev@shale.apache.org'; MyFaces Development
>>>>>> Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
>>>>>> So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting) should not
>>>>>> move,
>>>>>> but just stay in Shale.
>>>>>> Also let's see where templating and component development goes before
>>>>>> making
>>>>>> a decision about Clay.
>>>>>> So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it comes to JSF 2
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> Add-Ons move to MyFaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bernhard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>>>> Von: craigmcc@gmail.com [mailto:craigmcc@gmail.com]Im Auftrag
>>>>>>> von Craig
>>>>>>> McClanahan
>>>>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 01:48
>>>>>>> An: MyFaces Development; Shale Developers List
>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Remoting
>>>>>>>>> Unsure, as most of this can be done with PPR too.
>>>>>>>> +1 This is pretty useful and easy to use, and will affect JSF 2.0.
>>>>>>> A secondary benefit is near-zero config for resource access,
>>>> >
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> http://www.irian.at
>>
>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>> Courses in English and German
>>
>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>
>
>
>
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
I did a better version of the tiles-integration for tomahawk (also
works with Tiles2 now).
regards,
Martin
On 12/6/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 4:50 PM, Kito D. Mann <km...@virtua.com> wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > That's good to hear.
> >
> > There's a lot more value that just the testing framework FWIW. I think
> we've
> > discussed this already.
>
> ya, we did
>
> >
> > Honestly, I think the best thing to do is let Shale continue to exist for
> > the time being and move relevant portions into MyFaces, either as separate
> > subprojects (such as test and dialog) or pieces of other projects.
> > Annotations and Remoting could be part of Tomahawk or common, and the
> > ViewController could be part of Orchestra.
>
> I summarized today the same bits, makes sense to me.
> I'd prefer to see Orchestra's ViewController the one we use :)
>
> >
> > (Not sure about the Tiles integration stuff.)
> we don't need that
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Spencer [mailto:paulsp@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:59 AM
> > > To: MyFaces Development
> > > Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > >
> >
> > > Matthias,
> > > I made this same request, in addition to moving parts or all of Shale
> > > into MyFaces, to Wendy Smoak at ApacheCon in Atlanta. She said that
> > > she
> > > would look into it.
> > >
> > > Paul Spencer
> > >
> > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > >>> It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> > > >>> I am +1 on that.
> > > >>>
> > > >> <snip/>
> > > >>
> > > >> What do you have in mind, other than cutting the release? I may be
> > > >> able to help with the release (depends when etc.). v1.0.5 or v1.1.0
> > > or
> > > >> both?
> > > >
> > > > it was now a while, since the last release; and a release
> > > > (1.0.5 and 1.1.0 IMO) is needed.
> > > >
> > > > What happens after such a release?
> > > > I don't know. Shale is quite now, besides
> > > > some committs, that you do :-)
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>> I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> > > >>> I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> > > >>> -Dialog
> > > >>> -Remoting
> > > >>> -Test
> > > >>> -Tiger
> > > >>> -ViewController
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What happens to the rest?
> > > >>> I don't know;
> > > >>> Will they be maintained ?
> > > >>> I don't know;
> > > >>>
> > > >> <snap/>
> > > >>
> > > >> I intend to remain involved with the dialog modules, at the least.
> > > >
> > > > nice to hear. I have no problem with making the Shale committers
> > > MyFaces
> > > > committers. Some are already.
> > > >
> > > > -M
> > > >
> > > >> -Rahul
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Dec 6, 2007 4:50 PM, Kito D. Mann <km...@virtua.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> That's good to hear.
>
> There's a lot more value that just the testing framework FWIW. I think we've
> discussed this already.
ya, we did
>
> Honestly, I think the best thing to do is let Shale continue to exist for
> the time being and move relevant portions into MyFaces, either as separate
> subprojects (such as test and dialog) or pieces of other projects.
> Annotations and Remoting could be part of Tomahawk or common, and the
> ViewController could be part of Orchestra.
I summarized today the same bits, makes sense to me.
I'd prefer to see Orchestra's ViewController the one we use :)
>
> (Not sure about the Tiles integration stuff.)
we don't need that
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Spencer [mailto:paulsp@apache.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:59 AM
> > To: MyFaces Development
> > Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> >
>
> > Matthias,
> > I made this same request, in addition to moving parts or all of Shale
> > into MyFaces, to Wendy Smoak at ApacheCon in Atlanta. She said that
> > she
> > would look into it.
> >
> > Paul Spencer
> >
> > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > >>> It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> > >>> I am +1 on that.
> > >>>
> > >> <snip/>
> > >>
> > >> What do you have in mind, other than cutting the release? I may be
> > >> able to help with the release (depends when etc.). v1.0.5 or v1.1.0
> > or
> > >> both?
> > >
> > > it was now a while, since the last release; and a release
> > > (1.0.5 and 1.1.0 IMO) is needed.
> > >
> > > What happens after such a release?
> > > I don't know. Shale is quite now, besides
> > > some committs, that you do :-)
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> > >>> I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> > >>> -Dialog
> > >>> -Remoting
> > >>> -Test
> > >>> -Tiger
> > >>> -ViewController
> > >>>
> > >>> What happens to the rest?
> > >>> I don't know;
> > >>> Will they be maintained ?
> > >>> I don't know;
> > >>>
> > >> <snap/>
> > >>
> > >> I intend to remain involved with the dialog modules, at the least.
> > >
> > > nice to hear. I have no problem with making the Shale committers
> > MyFaces
> > > committers. Some are already.
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> > >> -Rahul
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
RE: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by "Kito D. Mann" <km...@virtua.com>.
Paul,
That's good to hear.
There's a lot more value that just the testing framework FWIW. I think we've
discussed this already.
Honestly, I think the best thing to do is let Shale continue to exist for
the time being and move relevant portions into MyFaces, either as separate
subprojects (such as test and dialog) or pieces of other projects.
Annotations and Remoting could be part of Tomahawk or common, and the
ViewController could be part of Orchestra.
(Not sure about the Tiles integration stuff.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Spencer [mailto:paulsp@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:59 AM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
>
> Matthias,
> I made this same request, in addition to moving parts or all of Shale
> into MyFaces, to Wendy Smoak at ApacheCon in Atlanta. She said that
> she
> would look into it.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> >>> It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> >>> I am +1 on that.
> >>>
> >> <snip/>
> >>
> >> What do you have in mind, other than cutting the release? I may be
> >> able to help with the release (depends when etc.). v1.0.5 or v1.1.0
> or
> >> both?
> >
> > it was now a while, since the last release; and a release
> > (1.0.5 and 1.1.0 IMO) is needed.
> >
> > What happens after such a release?
> > I don't know. Shale is quite now, besides
> > some committs, that you do :-)
> >
> >>
> >>> I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> >>> I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> >>> -Dialog
> >>> -Remoting
> >>> -Test
> >>> -Tiger
> >>> -ViewController
> >>>
> >>> What happens to the rest?
> >>> I don't know;
> >>> Will they be maintained ?
> >>> I don't know;
> >>>
> >> <snap/>
> >>
> >> I intend to remain involved with the dialog modules, at the least.
> >
> > nice to hear. I have no problem with making the Shale committers
> MyFaces
> > committers. Some are already.
> >
> > -M
> >
> >> -Rahul
> >>
> >
> >
> >
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
That's cool;
I think, I now remember (perhaps I forgot b/c of the cycling bar), you told me
about it;
We should have a release in shale, before we move/refactor/overhaul things;
Let's discuss this release thing on shale-dev ml;
-M
On Dec 6, 2007 3:58 PM, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> Matthias,
> I made this same request, in addition to moving parts or all of Shale
> into MyFaces, to Wendy Smoak at ApacheCon in Atlanta. She said that she
> would look into it.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
> >>> It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> >>> I am +1 on that.
> >>>
> >> <snip/>
> >>
> >> What do you have in mind, other than cutting the release? I may be
> >> able to help with the release (depends when etc.). v1.0.5 or v1.1.0 or
> >> both?
> >
> > it was now a while, since the last release; and a release
> > (1.0.5 and 1.1.0 IMO) is needed.
> >
> > What happens after such a release?
> > I don't know. Shale is quite now, besides
> > some committs, that you do :-)
> >
> >>
> >>> I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> >>> I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> >>> -Dialog
> >>> -Remoting
> >>> -Test
> >>> -Tiger
> >>> -ViewController
> >>>
> >>> What happens to the rest?
> >>> I don't know;
> >>> Will they be maintained ?
> >>> I don't know;
> >>>
> >> <snap/>
> >>
> >> I intend to remain involved with the dialog modules, at the least.
> >
> > nice to hear. I have no problem with making the Shale committers MyFaces
> > committers. Some are already.
> >
> > -M
> >
> >> -Rahul
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>.
Although I usually prefer dynamic mocks and easymock, I'm interested in the
test framework but only in this test module not other modules of shale.
On Dec 6, 2007 4:58 PM, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> Matthias,
> I made this same request, in addition to moving parts or all of Shale
> into MyFaces, to Wendy Smoak at ApacheCon in Atlanta. She said that she
> would look into it.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> >>> It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> >>> I am +1 on that.
> >>>
> >> <snip/>
> >>
> >> What do you have in mind, other than cutting the release? I may be
> >> able to help with the release (depends when etc.). v1.0.5 or v1.1.0 or
> >> both?
> >
> > it was now a while, since the last release; and a release
> > (1.0.5 and 1.1.0 IMO) is needed.
> >
> > What happens after such a release?
> > I don't know. Shale is quite now, besides
> > some committs, that you do :-)
> >
> >>
> >>> I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> >>> I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> >>> -Dialog
> >>> -Remoting
> >>> -Test
> >>> -Tiger
> >>> -ViewController
> >>>
> >>> What happens to the rest?
> >>> I don't know;
> >>> Will they be maintained ?
> >>> I don't know;
> >>>
> >> <snap/>
> >>
> >> I intend to remain involved with the dialog modules, at the least.
> >
> > nice to hear. I have no problem with making the Shale committers MyFaces
> > committers. Some are already.
> >
> > -M
> >
> >> -Rahul
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Matthias,
I made this same request, in addition to moving parts or all of Shale
into MyFaces, to Wendy Smoak at ApacheCon in Atlanta. She said that she
would look into it.
Paul Spencer
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>> It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
>>> I am +1 on that.
>>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> What do you have in mind, other than cutting the release? I may be
>> able to help with the release (depends when etc.). v1.0.5 or v1.1.0 or
>> both?
>
> it was now a while, since the last release; and a release
> (1.0.5 and 1.1.0 IMO) is needed.
>
> What happens after such a release?
> I don't know. Shale is quite now, besides
> some committs, that you do :-)
>
>>
>>> I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
>>> I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
>>> -Dialog
>>> -Remoting
>>> -Test
>>> -Tiger
>>> -ViewController
>>>
>>> What happens to the rest?
>>> I don't know;
>>> Will they be maintained ?
>>> I don't know;
>>>
>> <snap/>
>>
>> I intend to remain involved with the dialog modules, at the least.
>
> nice to hear. I have no problem with making the Shale committers MyFaces
> committers. Some are already.
>
> -M
>
>> -Rahul
>>
>
>
>
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
> > It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> > I am +1 on that.
> >
> <snip/>
>
> What do you have in mind, other than cutting the release? I may be
> able to help with the release (depends when etc.). v1.0.5 or v1.1.0 or
> both?
it was now a while, since the last release; and a release
(1.0.5 and 1.1.0 IMO) is needed.
What happens after such a release?
I don't know. Shale is quite now, besides
some committs, that you do :-)
>
>
> > I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> > I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> > -Dialog
> > -Remoting
> > -Test
> > -Tiger
> > -ViewController
> >
> > What happens to the rest?
> > I don't know;
> > Will they be maintained ?
> > I don't know;
> >
> <snap/>
>
> I intend to remain involved with the dialog modules, at the least.
nice to hear. I have no problem with making the Shale committers MyFaces
committers. Some are already.
-M
>
> -Rahul
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 12/6/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> to bring light to this discussion;
>
> On Oct 24, 2007 8:15 AM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For me, a merger makes sense.
> >
> > The question is who will do the work, though.
>
> yup! That's right.
>
<snip/>
Moving house can't be all that much work in this case, if thats the
consensus. I intend to be around.
> >
> > Some reflections on the modules:
> >
> > - ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense
> > here (the notion of subflows which
>
> I think the Orchestra VC is pretty solid, right now; I personally like it more.
> What potential makes sense (as an addition) is the Dialog mgr
> + the XML-W3C-thing (forgot the name :-) )
>
<snap/>
SCXML (I suspect you'll only hear more about it, so it'll get easier
to remember over time ;-)
>
>
> It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> I am +1 on that.
>
<snip/>
What do you have in mind, other than cutting the release? I may be
able to help with the release (depends when etc.). v1.0.5 or v1.1.0 or
both?
> I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> -Dialog
> -Remoting
> -Test
> -Tiger
> -ViewController
>
> What happens to the rest?
> I don't know;
> Will they be maintained ?
> I don't know;
>
<snap/>
I intend to remain involved with the dialog modules, at the least.
-Rahul
Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Perhaps, we just should wait, when it comes to Faces 2.x impl and take
the bits, as we need them;
same is true for Orchestra (like Dialog/VC) as well.
Besides that, the Test may be interesting for us, since we use it, and
I'd like to see that module stays alive :-)
-Matthias
On Dec 6, 2007 8:34 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> to bring light to this discussion;
>
> On Oct 24, 2007 8:15 AM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For me, a merger makes sense.
> >
> > The question is who will do the work, though.
>
> yup! That's right.
>
> >
> > Some reflections on the modules:
> >
> > - ViewController/Dialog: I hope Orchestra can take in what makes sense
> > here (the notion of subflows which
>
> I think the Orchestra VC is pretty solid, right now; I personally like it more.
> What potential makes sense (as an addition) is the Dialog mgr
> + the XML-W3C-thing (forgot the name :-) )
>
> > - Clay: Yes, obviously Facelets has won the race - we should all
> > concentrate our efforts there, so that the JSF community can profit as
> > a whole (and is not splitted)
>
> yes, no need for that, sorry to say.
>
> > - Tiger-extensions: again, this would make sense in Orchestra, as an
> > alternative way of configuring Orchestras beans (and also other beans,
> > of course) to using Spring
>
> for the discussion I have the understanding, that Tiger will be used as
> JSF2 @nnotation solution. We should take that bit for the next impl... :)
>
> > - test-framework: we've long used it in MyFaces, but for recent tests
> > both Matthias and me have used EasyMock, it is somewhat easier to
> > define changing interface behaviour with EasyMock than with static
> > mock-classes. Still, this is valuable, and should be a separate module
> > in the merger.
> > - validators - no, probably not really
>
> please no
>
> > - s:token: I'd love to have a generic way of preventing duplicated
> > posts. But I guess this is something that Orchestra could eventually
> > handle?
> >
> > apart from that, I don't know much more about Shale - sorry.
>
> other bits, that were discussed were:
> -AppController
> looks like nobody is really interested in this
> -Remoting
> sounds like a nice enhancement; and may be JSF 2.0 (as mentioned by
> some folks here)
> -Spring-Integration
> no need for that
>
> (Did I miss a module?)
>
>
> It was discussed, that Shale should have a final release;
> I am +1 on that.
>
> I am not sure, if all modules should really make it into MyFaces.
> I can see interest in these Shale-modules:
> -Dialog
> -Remoting
> -Test
> -Tiger
> -ViewController
>
> What happens to the rest?
> I don't know;
> Will they be maintained ?
> I don't know;
>
>
>
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > Ok, so what about having a 'myfaces dormant' project where each module gets
> > > added where it seems there is no real maintainer.
> > > This could be a place for abandoned sandbox stuff too.
> > > I know, the word 'maintainer' is not well placed in the context of an apache
> > > community, but in the end I think it would be fair to show to users that no
> > > one is really working on an project.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mario
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: "Grant Smith" <wo...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Monday, Okt 22, 2007 6:02 pm
> > > Subject: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > > To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <de...@myfaces.apache.org>To: "MyFaces
> > > Development" <de...@myfaces.apache.org>
> > >
> > > Conceptually, I am in favor of a merge. I wouldn't wait for JSF 2.0 to do
> > > it, though. +1.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 10/22/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:At least, 1
> > > year, that is my guess.
> > > >
> > > >So, I agree w/ Kito here
> > > >
> > > >-M
> > > >
> > > >On 10/22/07, Kito D. Mann <km...@virtua.com> wrote:
> > > >> I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or more
> > > away....
> > > >>
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > > >> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> > > >> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:bernhard.slominski@zooplus.com]
> > > >> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM
> > > >> > To: 'dev@shale.apache.org'; MyFaces Development
> > > >> > Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi all,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
> > > >> > So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting) should not
> > > >> > move,
> > > >> > but just stay in Shale.
> > > >> > Also let's see where templating and component development goes before
> > > >> > making
> > > >> > a decision about Clay.
> > > >> > So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it comes to JSF 2
> > > >> > all
> > > >> > Add-Ons move to MyFaces.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Bernhard
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > >> > > Von: craigmcc@gmail.com [mailto:craigmcc@gmail.com]Im Auftrag
> > > >> > > von Craig
> > > >> > > McClanahan
> > > >> > > Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 01:48
> > > >> > > An: MyFaces Development; Shale Developers List
> > > >> > > Betreff: Re: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > * Remoting
> > > >> > > > > Unsure, as most of this can be done with PPR too.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > +1 This is pretty useful and easy to use, and will affect JSF 2.0.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > A secondary benefit is near-zero config for resource access,
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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