You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@myfaces.apache.org by bo...@apache.org on 2005/12/13 18:36:14 UTC
svn commit: r356552 - in /incubator/tobago/trunk: src/site/fml/faq.fml
tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
Author: bommel
Date: Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
New Revision: 356552
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=356552&view=rev
Log:
added faq for facelets
Modified:
incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml (original)
+++ incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
@@ -22,6 +22,16 @@
components that need a renderer.</p>
</answer>
</faq>
+ <faq id="tobago/facelets">
+ <question>It is possible to combine tobago with facelets?</question>
+ <answer>
+ <p>It doesn't make sense.</p>
+ <p>Facelets are based on HTML-designed JSP source code.</p>
+ <p>Tobago on the other side abstracts from HTML. There are no HTML-Tags in the JSP source code.
+ There are only abstract tags. The Renderkit converts it to HTML or any other ML.
+ The idea of Tobago is: The theme controls the look-and-feel of the page.</p>
+ </answer>
+ </faq>
<faq id="tiles/sitemesh">
<question>Can tobago replace tiles? Can I ignore tiles and sitemesh in the favor of tobago or not?
</question>
Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml (original)
+++ incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
</parent>
<artifactId>tobago-theme-richmond</artifactId>
<packaging>jar</packaging>
- <name>Tobago theme richmond</name>
+ <name>Tobago theme Richmond</name>
<build>
<plugins>
<plugin>
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
</exclusions>
</dependency>
<dependency>
- <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
+ <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
<artifactId>servlet-api</artifactId>
<version>2.3</version>
<scope>provided</scope>
Re: svn commit: r356552 - in /incubator/tobago/trunk: src/site/fml/faq.fml
tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
Posted by Arvid Hülsebus <ar...@atanion.com>.
We didn't have the time to really check out Facelets up to now. We
removed the according FAQ entry and will take some time to look closer
at Facelets. From the documentation of Facelets we just saw the
"Tapestry-like views" aspect and this doesn't seem to make sense for Tobago.
Regards,
Arvid
Adam Winer wrote:
>Mike is entirely correct. There's no reason why any decent
>JSF component library shouldn't work with Facelets,
>and bommel@apache.org doesn't understand Facelets.
>ADF Faces, for example, abstracts away from HTML too;
>Facelets makes awesome sense with ADF Faces, just as
>it would with Tobago.
>
>The whole "Tapestry-like views" aspect of Facelets is just
>one small bit of it; the major value is providing a much, much
>better environment for JSF than JSPs are.
>
>Honestly, anyone who uses Facelets after JSPs will
>never want to go back. I don't quite get why MyFaces hasn't
>embraced Facelets fully.
>
>-- Adam Winer
>
>On 12/13/05, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think there's some misunderstanding here about facelets. Facelets
>>isn't tied to any particular view technology (ie, html).
>>
>>"Facelets are based on HTML-designed JSP source code" is untrue.
>>Facelets doesn't use tld files or (jsp)Tag classes. Facelets works
>>directly on the component class.
>>
>>There shouldn't be any reason why you can't use facelets with tobago,
>>providing you're writing clean components.
>>
>>
>>On 12/13/05, bommel@apache.org <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Author: bommel
>>>Date: Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
>>>New Revision: 356552
>>>
>>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=356552&view=rev
>>>Log:
>>>added faq for facelets
>>>
>>>Modified:
>>> incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
>>> incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
>>>
>>>Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
>>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
>>>==============================================================================
>>>--- incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml (original)
>>>+++ incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
>>>@@ -22,6 +22,16 @@
>>> components that need a renderer.</p>
>>> </answer>
>>> </faq>
>>>+ <faq id="tobago/facelets">
>>>+ <question>It is possible to combine tobago with facelets?</question>
>>>+ <answer>
>>>+ <p>It doesn't make sense.</p>
>>>+ <p>Facelets are based on HTML-designed JSP source code.</p>
>>>+ <p>Tobago on the other side abstracts from HTML. There are no HTML-Tags in the JSP source code.
>>>+ There are only abstract tags. The Renderkit converts it to HTML or any other ML.
>>>+ The idea of Tobago is: The theme controls the look-and-feel of the page.</p>
>>>+ </answer>
>>>+ </faq>
>>> <faq id="tiles/sitemesh">
>>> <question>Can tobago replace tiles? Can I ignore tiles and sitemesh in the favor of tobago or not?
>>> </question>
>>>
>>>Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
>>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
>>>==============================================================================
>>>--- incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml (original)
>>>+++ incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
>>>@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
>>> </parent>
>>> <artifactId>tobago-theme-richmond</artifactId>
>>> <packaging>jar</packaging>
>>>- <name>Tobago theme richmond</name>
>>>+ <name>Tobago theme Richmond</name>
>>> <build>
>>> <plugins>
>>> <plugin>
>>>@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
>>> </exclusions>
>>> </dependency>
>>> <dependency>
>>>- <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
>>>+ <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>servlet-api</artifactId>
>>> <version>2.3</version>
>>> <scope>provided</scope>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: svn commit: r356552 - in /incubator/tobago/trunk: src/site/fml/faq.fml tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good!
of course, MyFaces comes with its own solutions for two of those problems...
So what remains is performance in production and time-loss while
developing. Of course, that's more than enough reason to switch!
regards,
Martin
On 12/15/05, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > we haven't as we still have some open bugs which prevent working
> > Facelets perfectly with MyFaces. So this is a hen-egg problem. If we
> > got rid of those bugs, we'd use Facelets more, if Facelets was used
> > more, there might be someone inclined to get rid of those bugs ;).
> >
> > Now if someone who was interested in Facelets a lot would help us
> > getting rid of those bugs we would probably get there faster - hint,
> > hint...
> >
> > As to why many of the MyFaces committers don't see the actual need to
> > use Facelets - it's good that Facelets provide an alternative view
> > definition language - but if you keep strictly to using JSF tags in
> > your JSP-code, Facelets solve a problem that doesn't exist for you,
> > right?
>
> Not even close. You really need to try out Facelets a little -
> it solves A LOT of problems. For example, how about:
>
> - Eliminating the sit-and-wait-for-compiling cycle when you modify a
> JSP (it's instantaneous)
> - Robust templating that works far better than Tiles (for ewxample,
> good JSF-based parameterization of your templates)
> - Support for c:forEach - no, JSF tags aren't *always*
> good enough.
> - Significantly higher performance than JSPs
>
> Facelets is a total non-brainer for JSF developers of all stripes. Really!
> If a few of you guys tried it out, I think you'd be a lot more eager to jump on
> giving it first-class support.
>
> -- Adam
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: svn commit: r356552 - in /incubator/tobago/trunk: src/site/fml/faq.fml tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
And since Jacob wasn't totally clear, you don't even have
to touch Tapestry-like views with Facelets. I don't.
Your pages can look just like .jspx files (minus "jsp:" stuff,
of course).
-- Adam
On 12/14/05, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > we haven't as we still have some open bugs which prevent working
> > Facelets perfectly with MyFaces. So this is a hen-egg problem. If we
> > got rid of those bugs, we'd use Facelets more, if Facelets was used
> > more, there might be someone inclined to get rid of those bugs ;).
> >
> > Now if someone who was interested in Facelets a lot would help us
> > getting rid of those bugs we would probably get there faster - hint,
> > hint...
> >
> > As to why many of the MyFaces committers don't see the actual need to
> > use Facelets - it's good that Facelets provide an alternative view
> > definition language - but if you keep strictly to using JSF tags in
> > your JSP-code, Facelets solve a problem that doesn't exist for you,
> > right?
>
> Not even close. You really need to try out Facelets a little -
> it solves A LOT of problems. For example, how about:
>
> - Eliminating the sit-and-wait-for-compiling cycle when you modify a
> JSP (it's instantaneous)
> - Robust templating that works far better than Tiles (for ewxample,
> good JSF-based parameterization of your templates)
> - Support for c:forEach - no, JSF tags aren't *always*
> good enough.
> - Significantly higher performance than JSPs
>
> Facelets is a total non-brainer for JSF developers of all stripes. Really!
> If a few of you guys tried it out, I think you'd be a lot more eager to jump on
> giving it first-class support.
>
> -- Adam
>
Re: svn commit: r356552 - in /incubator/tobago/trunk: src/site/fml/faq.fml tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
On 12/14/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adam,
>
> we haven't as we still have some open bugs which prevent working
> Facelets perfectly with MyFaces. So this is a hen-egg problem. If we
> got rid of those bugs, we'd use Facelets more, if Facelets was used
> more, there might be someone inclined to get rid of those bugs ;).
>
> Now if someone who was interested in Facelets a lot would help us
> getting rid of those bugs we would probably get there faster - hint,
> hint...
>
> As to why many of the MyFaces committers don't see the actual need to
> use Facelets - it's good that Facelets provide an alternative view
> definition language - but if you keep strictly to using JSF tags in
> your JSP-code, Facelets solve a problem that doesn't exist for you,
> right?
Not even close. You really need to try out Facelets a little -
it solves A LOT of problems. For example, how about:
- Eliminating the sit-and-wait-for-compiling cycle when you modify a
JSP (it's instantaneous)
- Robust templating that works far better than Tiles (for ewxample,
good JSF-based parameterization of your templates)
- Support for c:forEach - no, JSF tags aren't *always*
good enough.
- Significantly higher performance than JSPs
Facelets is a total non-brainer for JSF developers of all stripes. Really!
If a few of you guys tried it out, I think you'd be a lot more eager to jump on
giving it first-class support.
-- Adam
Re: svn commit: r356552 - in /incubator/tobago/trunk: src/site/fml/faq.fml tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Adam,
we haven't as we still have some open bugs which prevent working
Facelets perfectly with MyFaces. So this is a hen-egg problem. If we
got rid of those bugs, we'd use Facelets more, if Facelets was used
more, there might be someone inclined to get rid of those bugs ;).
Now if someone who was interested in Facelets a lot would help us
getting rid of those bugs we would probably get there faster - hint,
hint...
As to why many of the MyFaces committers don't see the actual need to
use Facelets - it's good that Facelets provide an alternative view
definition language - but if you keep strictly to using JSF tags in
your JSP-code, Facelets solve a problem that doesn't exist for you,
right?
regards,
Martin
On 12/14/05, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike is entirely correct. There's no reason why any decent
> JSF component library shouldn't work with Facelets,
> and bommel@apache.org doesn't understand Facelets.
> ADF Faces, for example, abstracts away from HTML too;
> Facelets makes awesome sense with ADF Faces, just as
> it would with Tobago.
>
> The whole "Tapestry-like views" aspect of Facelets is just
> one small bit of it; the major value is providing a much, much
> better environment for JSF than JSPs are.
>
> Honestly, anyone who uses Facelets after JSPs will
> never want to go back. I don't quite get why MyFaces hasn't
> embraced Facelets fully.
>
> -- Adam Winer
>
> On 12/13/05, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think there's some misunderstanding here about facelets. Facelets
> > isn't tied to any particular view technology (ie, html).
> >
> > "Facelets are based on HTML-designed JSP source code" is untrue.
> > Facelets doesn't use tld files or (jsp)Tag classes. Facelets works
> > directly on the component class.
> >
> > There shouldn't be any reason why you can't use facelets with tobago,
> > providing you're writing clean components.
> >
> >
> > On 12/13/05, bommel@apache.org <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Author: bommel
> > > Date: Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
> > > New Revision: 356552
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=356552&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > added faq for facelets
> > >
> > > Modified:
> > > incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
> > > incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
> > >
> > > Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
> > > ==============================================================================
> > > --- incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml (original)
> > > +++ incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
> > > @@ -22,6 +22,16 @@
> > > components that need a renderer.</p>
> > > </answer>
> > > </faq>
> > > + <faq id="tobago/facelets">
> > > + <question>It is possible to combine tobago with facelets?</question>
> > > + <answer>
> > > + <p>It doesn't make sense.</p>
> > > + <p>Facelets are based on HTML-designed JSP source code.</p>
> > > + <p>Tobago on the other side abstracts from HTML. There are no HTML-Tags in the JSP source code.
> > > + There are only abstract tags. The Renderkit converts it to HTML or any other ML.
> > > + The idea of Tobago is: The theme controls the look-and-feel of the page.</p>
> > > + </answer>
> > > + </faq>
> > > <faq id="tiles/sitemesh">
> > > <question>Can tobago replace tiles? Can I ignore tiles and sitemesh in the favor of tobago or not?
> > > </question>
> > >
> > > Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
> > > ==============================================================================
> > > --- incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml (original)
> > > +++ incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
> > > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
> > > </parent>
> > > <artifactId>tobago-theme-richmond</artifactId>
> > > <packaging>jar</packaging>
> > > - <name>Tobago theme richmond</name>
> > > + <name>Tobago theme Richmond</name>
> > > <build>
> > > <plugins>
> > > <plugin>
> > > @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
> > > </exclusions>
> > > </dependency>
> > > <dependency>
> > > - <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
> > > + <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
> > > <artifactId>servlet-api</artifactId>
> > > <version>2.3</version>
> > > <scope>provided</scope>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: svn commit: r356552 - in /incubator/tobago/trunk: src/site/fml/faq.fml tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
Mike is entirely correct. There's no reason why any decent
JSF component library shouldn't work with Facelets,
and bommel@apache.org doesn't understand Facelets.
ADF Faces, for example, abstracts away from HTML too;
Facelets makes awesome sense with ADF Faces, just as
it would with Tobago.
The whole "Tapestry-like views" aspect of Facelets is just
one small bit of it; the major value is providing a much, much
better environment for JSF than JSPs are.
Honestly, anyone who uses Facelets after JSPs will
never want to go back. I don't quite get why MyFaces hasn't
embraced Facelets fully.
-- Adam Winer
On 12/13/05, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think there's some misunderstanding here about facelets. Facelets
> isn't tied to any particular view technology (ie, html).
>
> "Facelets are based on HTML-designed JSP source code" is untrue.
> Facelets doesn't use tld files or (jsp)Tag classes. Facelets works
> directly on the component class.
>
> There shouldn't be any reason why you can't use facelets with tobago,
> providing you're writing clean components.
>
>
> On 12/13/05, bommel@apache.org <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Author: bommel
> > Date: Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
> > New Revision: 356552
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=356552&view=rev
> > Log:
> > added faq for facelets
> >
> > Modified:
> > incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
> > incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
> >
> > Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml (original)
> > +++ incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
> > @@ -22,6 +22,16 @@
> > components that need a renderer.</p>
> > </answer>
> > </faq>
> > + <faq id="tobago/facelets">
> > + <question>It is possible to combine tobago with facelets?</question>
> > + <answer>
> > + <p>It doesn't make sense.</p>
> > + <p>Facelets are based on HTML-designed JSP source code.</p>
> > + <p>Tobago on the other side abstracts from HTML. There are no HTML-Tags in the JSP source code.
> > + There are only abstract tags. The Renderkit converts it to HTML or any other ML.
> > + The idea of Tobago is: The theme controls the look-and-feel of the page.</p>
> > + </answer>
> > + </faq>
> > <faq id="tiles/sitemesh">
> > <question>Can tobago replace tiles? Can I ignore tiles and sitemesh in the favor of tobago or not?
> > </question>
> >
> > Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml (original)
> > +++ incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
> > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
> > </parent>
> > <artifactId>tobago-theme-richmond</artifactId>
> > <packaging>jar</packaging>
> > - <name>Tobago theme richmond</name>
> > + <name>Tobago theme Richmond</name>
> > <build>
> > <plugins>
> > <plugin>
> > @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
> > </exclusions>
> > </dependency>
> > <dependency>
> > - <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
> > + <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
> > <artifactId>servlet-api</artifactId>
> > <version>2.3</version>
> > <scope>provided</scope>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: svn commit: r356552 - in /incubator/tobago/trunk: src/site/fml/faq.fml tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
I think there's some misunderstanding here about facelets. Facelets
isn't tied to any particular view technology (ie, html).
"Facelets are based on HTML-designed JSP source code" is untrue.
Facelets doesn't use tld files or (jsp)Tag classes. Facelets works
directly on the component class.
There shouldn't be any reason why you can't use facelets with tobago,
providing you're writing clean components.
On 12/13/05, bommel@apache.org <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: bommel
> Date: Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
> New Revision: 356552
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=356552&view=rev
> Log:
> added faq for facelets
>
> Modified:
> incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
> incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
>
> Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml (original)
> +++ incubator/tobago/trunk/src/site/fml/faq.fml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
> @@ -22,6 +22,16 @@
> components that need a renderer.</p>
> </answer>
> </faq>
> + <faq id="tobago/facelets">
> + <question>It is possible to combine tobago with facelets?</question>
> + <answer>
> + <p>It doesn't make sense.</p>
> + <p>Facelets are based on HTML-designed JSP source code.</p>
> + <p>Tobago on the other side abstracts from HTML. There are no HTML-Tags in the JSP source code.
> + There are only abstract tags. The Renderkit converts it to HTML or any other ML.
> + The idea of Tobago is: The theme controls the look-and-feel of the page.</p>
> + </answer>
> + </faq>
> <faq id="tiles/sitemesh">
> <question>Can tobago replace tiles? Can I ignore tiles and sitemesh in the favor of tobago or not?
> </question>
>
> Modified: incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml?rev=356552&r1=356551&r2=356552&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml (original)
> +++ incubator/tobago/trunk/tobago-theme/tobago-theme-richmond/pom.xml Tue Dec 13 09:35:51 2005
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
> </parent>
> <artifactId>tobago-theme-richmond</artifactId>
> <packaging>jar</packaging>
> - <name>Tobago theme richmond</name>
> + <name>Tobago theme Richmond</name>
> <build>
> <plugins>
> <plugin>
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
> </exclusions>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> - <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
> + <groupId>javax.servlet</groupId>
> <artifactId>servlet-api</artifactId>
> <version>2.3</version>
> <scope>provided</scope>
>
>
>