RE: [Tomahawk] facelets

["Nebinger, David" <dn...@tbbgl.com>]

> I thought: why not putting this file  <facelets defn file for
tomahawk>
> right away in the meta-inf of the Tomahawk jar? 
> Won't harm nobody but will certainly help a lot of people. 
> Although I still subscribe to that idea, he had a point also: 
> MF and facelets are indeed 2 different technologies, better keep the 2
apart.

Oh, come on, I've heard lame excuses before but this would seem to take
the cake.

It's not like facelets support requires additional code/classes/whatever
to use tomahawk and facelets, it is merely the extra xml file.

Now the end users are forced to try to track down a working file that
has a version that works with the version of tomahawk they're using.

Give 'em a break and just add the file and be done with it...

Re: [Tomahawk] facelets

[Kem Elbrader <ke...@gmail.com>]

Not sure which method I think is better but I would definitely like
there to be a standard, updated way to do this for tomahawk. I vote in
that vain if it counts for anything :)

Also, won't there be more involved than just the taglib.xml file, such
as a Tag Handler to get the tree2 component to work?

On 8/3/07, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be nice to have it automated, but really, is it necessary for
> the short term? The taglib requires hardly any data, so is extremely
> easy to maintain. To keep the maven site updated already requires
> modifying its documents, so this is no harder. Sandbox already
> requires even more work to maintain the TLD files than the work
> required to support facelets.
>
> Voting +1 on adding taglib.xml files to the META-INF directory of
> tomahawk and sandbox without creating new JAR files.
>
> -Andrew
>
> On 8/3/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, as far as I know, all of the MyFaces committers are +1 for
> > making a tomahawk.taglib.xml file for MyFaces part of the
> > distribution.   The problem is that we don't have an automated process
> > in place to keep the file up to date yet.   Hence Bruno's comment that
> > we'll address it in Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 since no committer has had
> > the time and energy to tackle it in our current build system.
> >
> > As for "what harm", if we put something into the main tomahawk jar
> > file, it becomes exceedingly difficult for end-users to override those
> > definitions.   Since there's no process in place to automatically
> > generate the right definitions, there's a lot of room for error here.
> >  If we can't keep a community wiki page up to date with the correct
> > definitions, it stands to reason that a committer-only file
> > (committers being only a small subset of the community maintaining the
> > wiki page) is going to be worse, not better, at having the correct
> > entries in the taglib file.
> >
> > I think Bruno's tomahawk-facelets.jar file is probably the best
> > short-term solution until we get the automated build in place.
> >
> > On 8/3/07, Nebinger, David <dn...@tbbgl.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I thought: why not putting this file  <facelets defn file for
> > > tomahawk>
> > > > right away in the meta-inf of the Tomahawk jar?
> > > > Won't harm nobody but will certainly help a lot of people.
> > > > Although I still subscribe to that idea, he had a point also:
> > > > MF and facelets are indeed 2 different technologies, better keep the 2
> > > apart.
> > >
> > > Oh, come on, I've heard lame excuses before but this would seem to take
> > > the cake.
> > >
> > > It's not like facelets support requires additional code/classes/whatever
> > > to use tomahawk and facelets, it is merely the extra xml file.
> > >
> > > Now the end users are forced to try to track down a working file that
> > > has a version that works with the version of tomahawk they're using.
> > >
> > > Give 'em a break and just add the file and be done with it...
> > >
> >
>

Re: [Tomahawk] facelets

[Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>]

It would be nice to have it automated, but really, is it necessary for
the short term? The taglib requires hardly any data, so is extremely
easy to maintain. To keep the maven site updated already requires
modifying its documents, so this is no harder. Sandbox already
requires even more work to maintain the TLD files than the work
required to support facelets.

Voting +1 on adding taglib.xml files to the META-INF directory of
tomahawk and sandbox without creating new JAR files.

-Andrew

On 8/3/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, as far as I know, all of the MyFaces committers are +1 for
> making a tomahawk.taglib.xml file for MyFaces part of the
> distribution.   The problem is that we don't have an automated process
> in place to keep the file up to date yet.   Hence Bruno's comment that
> we'll address it in Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 since no committer has had
> the time and energy to tackle it in our current build system.
>
> As for "what harm", if we put something into the main tomahawk jar
> file, it becomes exceedingly difficult for end-users to override those
> definitions.   Since there's no process in place to automatically
> generate the right definitions, there's a lot of room for error here.
>  If we can't keep a community wiki page up to date with the correct
> definitions, it stands to reason that a committer-only file
> (committers being only a small subset of the community maintaining the
> wiki page) is going to be worse, not better, at having the correct
> entries in the taglib file.
>
> I think Bruno's tomahawk-facelets.jar file is probably the best
> short-term solution until we get the automated build in place.
>
> On 8/3/07, Nebinger, David <dn...@tbbgl.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I thought: why not putting this file  <facelets defn file for
> > tomahawk>
> > > right away in the meta-inf of the Tomahawk jar?
> > > Won't harm nobody but will certainly help a lot of people.
> > > Although I still subscribe to that idea, he had a point also:
> > > MF and facelets are indeed 2 different technologies, better keep the 2
> > apart.
> >
> > Oh, come on, I've heard lame excuses before but this would seem to take
> > the cake.
> >
> > It's not like facelets support requires additional code/classes/whatever
> > to use tomahawk and facelets, it is merely the extra xml file.
> >
> > Now the end users are forced to try to track down a working file that
> > has a version that works with the version of tomahawk they're using.
> >
> > Give 'em a break and just add the file and be done with it...
> >
>

Re: [Tomahawk] facelets

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

Actually, as far as I know, all of the MyFaces committers are +1 for
making a tomahawk.taglib.xml file for MyFaces part of the
distribution.   The problem is that we don't have an automated process
in place to keep the file up to date yet.   Hence Bruno's comment that
we'll address it in Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 since no committer has had
the time and energy to tackle it in our current build system.

As for "what harm", if we put something into the main tomahawk jar
file, it becomes exceedingly difficult for end-users to override those
definitions.   Since there's no process in place to automatically
generate the right definitions, there's a lot of room for error here.
 If we can't keep a community wiki page up to date with the correct
definitions, it stands to reason that a committer-only file
(committers being only a small subset of the community maintaining the
wiki page) is going to be worse, not better, at having the correct
entries in the taglib file.

I think Bruno's tomahawk-facelets.jar file is probably the best
short-term solution until we get the automated build in place.

On 8/3/07, Nebinger, David <dn...@tbbgl.com> wrote:
>
> > I thought: why not putting this file  <facelets defn file for
> tomahawk>
> > right away in the meta-inf of the Tomahawk jar?
> > Won't harm nobody but will certainly help a lot of people.
> > Although I still subscribe to that idea, he had a point also:
> > MF and facelets are indeed 2 different technologies, better keep the 2
> apart.
>
> Oh, come on, I've heard lame excuses before but this would seem to take
> the cake.
>
> It's not like facelets support requires additional code/classes/whatever
> to use tomahawk and facelets, it is merely the extra xml file.
>
> Now the end users are forced to try to track down a working file that
> has a version that works with the version of tomahawk they're using.
>
> Give 'em a break and just add the file and be done with it...
>