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 2007/12/01 12:12:31 UTC
[commons] structure proposal...
Hi,
here is structure for the SVN, what we would to kickoff today!
/commons/
-/myfaces-commons-validators/
-/myfaces-commons-converters/
-/myfaces-commons-utils/
-/myfaces-commons-fileupload/
-TBD
For some pieces, like the converters/validators we are going to use
the Trinidad plugins, as they were already used by the MyFaces Core
1.2.x project.
This allows us to generate configuration files (such as faces-config
and the one for Facelets) and the particular Tag-classes (like for the
JSP-Tags).
The idea is that these JARs are all independent, so that one can just
drop "myfaces-commons-validators.jar" in, if the user is ONLY!
interested in our
extra validators.
We don't remove *existing* code from projects like Tomahawk, yet!
This is just a simple, initial kickoff, to get finally started, since
it was already discussed near to death :-)
What are you thoughts ?
-Matthias
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
Anyway, that is ok for me :)
Thanks,
Bruno
On 01/12/2007, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2007/12/1, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> > > I am fine with that, just, I'd change the name "commons" for
> > > validators/converters/fileupload ....
> >
> > /commons/
> > -/myfaces-validators
> > -...
>
> +1
>
> Regards,
>
> Volker
>
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I would say, just go for it. I think we need to setup this the
sooner the better to keep going...
Bruno
On 01/12/2007, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1
>
> myfaces-converters is more natural, I think
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 1:16 PM, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What about myfaces-extra-validators... etc...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> > On 01/12/2007, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 2007 1:06 PM, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > 2007/12/1, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > I am fine with that, just, I'd change the name "commons" for
> > > > > > validators/converters/fileupload ....
> > > > >
> > > > > /commons/
> > > > > -/myfaces-validators
> > > > > -...
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > >
> > > done
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Volker
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
-1
myfaces-converters is more natural, I think
On Dec 1, 2007 1:16 PM, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about myfaces-extra-validators... etc...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruno
>
>
> On 01/12/2007, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2007 1:06 PM, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 2007/12/1, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> > > > > I am fine with that, just, I'd change the name "commons" for
> > > > > validators/converters/fileupload ....
> > > >
> > > > /commons/
> > > > -/myfaces-validators
> > > > -...
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > done
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Volker
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
What about myfaces-extra-validators... etc...
Cheers,
Bruno
On 01/12/2007, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2007 1:06 PM, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2007/12/1, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> > > > I am fine with that, just, I'd change the name "commons" for
> > > > validators/converters/fileupload ....
> > >
> > > /commons/
> > > -/myfaces-validators
> > > -...
> >
> > +1
>
> done
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Volker
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Dec 1, 2007 1:06 PM, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2007/12/1, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> > > I am fine with that, just, I'd change the name "commons" for
> > > validators/converters/fileupload ....
> >
> > /commons/
> > -/myfaces-validators
> > -...
>
> +1
done
>
> Regards,
>
> Volker
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de>.
Hi,
2007/12/1, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> > I am fine with that, just, I'd change the name "commons" for
> > validators/converters/fileupload ....
>
> /commons/
> -/myfaces-validators
> -...
+1
Regards,
Volker
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
> I thought more about
> /commons/
> -/myfaces-commons-utils
> /newprojectname/
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-validators
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-converters
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-ppr
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-grids
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-layouters
what about "creme" as the new name ?
:-)
>
> We really should think about that as the long awaited fusion of the best
> possible techniques at myfaces - proven to work together nicely.
>
> > Hrm.. not sure if a *common* PPR is really fine.
> > Trinidad, for instance doesn't need anything from dojo, so we have our
> > very simple and lightweight "ajax"-API.
> >
> Thats the nice thing about modularizing tomahaw/trinidad. If one would
> like to use our ppr, adding our jar would be enough, and ...
>
> > So, adding dojo, as a common mechanism to Trinidad, is not really
> > something, I am thrilled about.
> >
> ... it is not put in stone that the ppr project above is based on the
> tomahawk-sandbox-ppr. BTW: If a component itself is ajaxable without any
> additional ppr lib it should work too.
>
> > but, we can bring this up in the future, current goal is, to just
> > kickoff the base
> > of commons.
> >
> As the discussion has come so far - I think - the least common
> denominator is just the myfaces-commons-utils project and even there it
> seems we are not able to work out if we should split it into -api/-impl.
> Sorry to have to say that.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
once more... to make it clear;
this all is not! final, we can remove/delete/move_it_to_codehaus :-)
every time ;-)
Just a proof of concept.
Thx,
Matthias
On Dec 1, 2007 2:08 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Please notice that "newprojectname" ist not located under "commons"!
> > The question is, what makes the result of the fission ;-) of tomahawk
> > and trinidad more "common" than any other project. Why should it deserve
> > the name "commons"?
>
> looks like, we start all under commons now;
> we can always move it.
>
> otherwise it will be discussed to death :-)
>
> >
> > > like
> > > /commons
> > > -/myfaces-validator
> > > -/api
> > > -/impl
> > > -/myfaces-converter
> > > -/api
> > > -/impl
> > >
> > > Isn't that a bit to much ?
> > >
> > I think too.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Mario
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
> Please notice that "newprojectname" ist not located under "commons"!
> The question is, what makes the result of the fission ;-) of tomahawk
> and trinidad more "common" than any other project. Why should it deserve
> the name "commons"?
looks like, we start all under commons now;
we can always move it.
otherwise it will be discussed to death :-)
>
> > like
> > /commons
> > -/myfaces-validator
> > -/api
> > -/impl
> > -/myfaces-converter
> > -/api
> > -/impl
> >
> > Isn't that a bit to much ?
> >
> I think too.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
>> I thought more about
>> /commons/
>> -/myfaces-commons-utils
>> /newprojectname/
>> -/myfaces-newprojectname-validators
>> -/myfaces-newprojectname-converters
>> -/myfaces-newprojectname-ppr
>> -/myfaces-newprojectname-grids
>> -/myfaces-newprojectname-layouters
>>
>
> no real need for a new project name, IMO
>
Please notice that "newprojectname" ist not located under "commons"!
The question is, what makes the result of the fission ;-) of tomahawk
and trinidad more "common" than any other project. Why should it deserve
the name "commons"?
> like
> /commons
> -/myfaces-validator
> -/api
> -/impl
> -/myfaces-converter
> -/api
> -/impl
>
> Isn't that a bit to much ?
>
I think too.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
> I thought more about
> /commons/
> -/myfaces-commons-utils
> /newprojectname/
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-validators
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-converters
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-ppr
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-grids
> -/myfaces-newprojectname-layouters
no real need for a new project name, IMO
>
> We really should think about that as the long awaited fusion of the best
> possible techniques at myfaces - proven to work together nicely.
>
> > Hrm.. not sure if a *common* PPR is really fine.
> > Trinidad, for instance doesn't need anything from dojo, so we have our
> > very simple and lightweight "ajax"-API.
> >
> Thats the nice thing about modularizing tomahaw/trinidad. If one would
> like to use our ppr, adding our jar would be enough, and ...
>
> > So, adding dojo, as a common mechanism to Trinidad, is not really
> > something, I am thrilled about.
> >
> ... it is not put in stone that the ppr project above is based on the
> tomahawk-sandbox-ppr. BTW: If a component itself is ajaxable without any
> additional ppr lib it should work too.
>
> > but, we can bring this up in the future, current goal is, to just
> > kickoff the base
> > of commons.
> >
> As the discussion has come so far - I think - the least common
> denominator is just the myfaces-commons-utils project and even there it
that is pretty uninteresting stuff, to just have these utils.
The real benefit is "more" mature things like upload, converter,...
> seems we are not able to work out if we should split it into -api/-impl.
> Sorry to have to say that.
like
/commons
-/myfaces-validator
-/api
-/impl
-/myfaces-converter
-/api
-/impl
Isn't that a bit to much ?
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
>> I am fine with that, just, I'd change the name "commons" for
>> validators/converters/fileupload ....
>>
>
> /commons/
> -/myfaces-validators
> -...
> or what ?
>
I thought more about
/commons/
-/myfaces-commons-utils
/newprojectname/
-/myfaces-newprojectname-validators
-/myfaces-newprojectname-converters
-/myfaces-newprojectname-ppr
-/myfaces-newprojectname-grids
-/myfaces-newprojectname-layouters
We really should think about that as the long awaited fusion of the best
possible techniques at myfaces - proven to work together nicely.
> Hrm.. not sure if a *common* PPR is really fine.
> Trinidad, for instance doesn't need anything from dojo, so we have our
> very simple and lightweight "ajax"-API.
>
Thats the nice thing about modularizing tomahaw/trinidad. If one would
like to use our ppr, adding our jar would be enough, and ...
> So, adding dojo, as a common mechanism to Trinidad, is not really
> something, I am thrilled about.
>
... it is not put in stone that the ppr project above is based on the
tomahawk-sandbox-ppr. BTW: If a component itself is ajaxable without any
additional ppr lib it should work too.
> but, we can bring this up in the future, current goal is, to just
> kickoff the base
> of commons.
>
As the discussion has come so far - I think - the least common
denominator is just the myfaces-commons-utils project and even there it
seems we are not able to work out if we should split it into -api/-impl.
Sorry to have to say that.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
> I am fine with that, just, I'd change the name "commons" for
> validators/converters/fileupload ....
/commons/
-/myfaces-validators
-...
or what ?
> This new project has the potential then to hold the best of
> trinidad/tomahawk/tobago (if possible - think about
> myfaces-XXX-layouters) ... it deserves a better name than just commons, no?
>
> -/myfaces-XXX-tables
> -/myfaces-XXX-ppr
Hrm.. not sure if a *common* PPR is really fine.
Trinidad, for instance doesn't need anything from dojo, so we have our
very simple and lightweight "ajax"-API.
So, adding dojo, as a common mechanism to Trinidad, is not really
something, I am thrilled about.
That would be too much overhead.
but, we can bring this up in the future, current goal is, to just
kickoff the base
of commons.
-Matthias
>
> :-)
>
> Not sure if we have to provide a all-in-one jar than too ... might need
> some maven/xml/faces-config.xml/merger/thingy.
>
> > We don't remove *existing* code from projects like Tomahawk, yet!
> >
> But could be a way .... later ... or ... instead of tomahawk 2.0 ... I
> think!
>
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [commons] structure proposal...
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> /commons/
> -/myfaces-commons-validators/
> -/myfaces-commons-converters/
> -/myfaces-commons-utils/
> -/myfaces-commons-fileupload/
> -TBD
>
I am fine with that, just, I'd change the name "commons" for
validators/converters/fileupload ....
This new project has the potential then to hold the best of
trinidad/tomahawk/tobago (if possible - think about
myfaces-XXX-layouters) ... it deserves a better name than just commons, no?
-/myfaces-XXX-tables
-/myfaces-XXX-ppr
:-)
Not sure if we have to provide a all-in-one jar than too ... might need
some maven/xml/faces-config.xml/merger/thingy.
> We don't remove *existing* code from projects like Tomahawk, yet!
>
But could be a way .... later ... or ... instead of tomahawk 2.0 ... I
think!
Ciao,
Mario