[Tomahawk] facelets

[Erlend Hamnaberg <er...@underdusken.no>]

does anyone have an updated tomahawk.taglib.xml ? The one at the wiki 
does not seem updated.

Will Myfaces add full facelets support to its custom components?

Regards

Erlend

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...
>

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

[Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>]

Hi, I have uploaded my little project which I created with info from
the wiki and other sources here:

http://code.google.com/p/tomahawk-facelets

It should be supporting tomahawk 1.1.6 and the sandbox. Hope it helps!

Bruno

On 31/07/07, Wolf Benz <eu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thx Alexander,
> For what Tomahawk version is this? (116/117?)
> -Wolf
>
> On 7/31/07, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is probably that the next major version of tomahawk (the one
> > explicitly created for jsf 1.2) will integrate the facelets taglib
> > generation in the build process, as it will take advantage of the code
> > generation of the trinidad's maven-faces-plugin.
> >
> > In the meanwhile, I use this library (implemented by myself):
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~baranda/tomahawk-facelets-1.0.jar
> >
> > Feel free to use it, apache license...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > On 31/07/07, Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121)
> >
> > <al...@credit-suisse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > instead of supplying two taglib-files... just create two jar-files with
> > > nothing more in it, than
> > > the two taglib files...
> > > Then the deployment of the two jar-files is enough, whereas the deployment
> > > of the two taglib-files
> > > requires additional work from the user...
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Alexander
> > >
> > >  ________________________________
> > >  From: Wolf Benz [mailto:eurojava@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:56 AM
> > > To: MyFaces Discussion
> > > Subject: Re: [Tomahawk] facelets
> > >
> > >
> > > I talked about this with Werner Punz...
> > > I thought: why not putting this file 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yet, it's another thing we can';tr forget to set up and currently the file
> > > @MF Wiki is indeed to be stitched together manually with is kinda funny
> > > (unprofessional).
> > > I think there is room for improvement, either in the form of a
> > > facelets-integrated download.  (so Toma & Sandbox WITH the taglibs in their
> > > meta-in dirs) or at least another entry in the download table just for
> > > facelets: a link to the jsf-facelts.jar, and 2 links, to the respective
> > > taglib files.
> > > This, for me, would seem to be its logical place.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Wolf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/31/07, Erlend Hamnaberg <er...@underdusken.no> wrote:
> > > > does anyone have an updated tomahawk.taglib.xml ? The one at the wiki
> > > > does not seem updated.
> > > >
> > > > Will Myfaces add full facelets support to its custom components?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Erlend
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [Tomahawk] facelets

[Wolf Benz <eu...@gmail.com>]

Thx Alexander,
For what Tomahawk version is this? (116/117?)
-Wolf

On 7/31/07, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is probably that the next major version of tomahawk (the one
> explicitly created for jsf 1.2) will integrate the facelets taglib
> generation in the build process, as it will take advantage of the code
> generation of the trinidad's maven-faces-plugin.
>
> In the meanwhile, I use this library (implemented by myself):
>
> http://people.apache.org/~baranda/tomahawk-facelets-1.0.jar
>
> Feel free to use it, apache license...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruno
>
> On 31/07/07, Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121)
>
> <al...@credit-suisse.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > instead of supplying two taglib-files... just create two jar-files with
> > nothing more in it, than
> > the two taglib files...
> > Then the deployment of the two jar-files is enough, whereas the deployment
> > of the two taglib-files
> > requires additional work from the user...
> >
> > regards
> > Alexander
> >
> >  ________________________________
> >  From: Wolf Benz [mailto:eurojava@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:56 AM
> > To: MyFaces Discussion
> > Subject: Re: [Tomahawk] facelets
> >
> >
> > I talked about this with Werner Punz...
> > I thought: why not putting this file 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.
> >
> >
> > Yet, it's another thing we can';tr forget to set up and currently the file
> > @MF Wiki is indeed to be stitched together manually with is kinda funny
> > (unprofessional).
> > I think there is room for improvement, either in the form of a
> > facelets-integrated download.  (so Toma & Sandbox WITH the taglibs in their
> > meta-in dirs) or at least another entry in the download table just for
> > facelets: a link to the jsf-facelts.jar, and 2 links, to the respective
> > taglib files.
> > This, for me, would seem to be its logical place.
> >
> >
> > -Wolf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/31/07, Erlend Hamnaberg <er...@underdusken.no> wrote:
> > > does anyone have an updated tomahawk.taglib.xml ? The one at the wiki
> > > does not seem updated.
> > >
> > > Will Myfaces add full facelets support to its custom components?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Erlend
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: [Tomahawk] facelets

[Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>]

It is probably that the next major version of tomahawk (the one
explicitly created for jsf 1.2) will integrate the facelets taglib
generation in the build process, as it will take advantage of the code
generation of the trinidad's maven-faces-plugin.

In the meanwhile, I use this library (implemented by myself):

http://people.apache.org/~baranda/tomahawk-facelets-1.0.jar

Feel free to use it, apache license...

Cheers,

Bruno

On 31/07/07, Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121)
<al...@credit-suisse.com> wrote:
>
>
> instead of supplying two taglib-files... just create two jar-files with
> nothing more in it, than
> the two taglib files...
> Then the deployment of the two jar-files is enough, whereas the deployment
> of the two taglib-files
> requires additional work from the user...
>
> regards
> Alexander
>
>  ________________________________
>  From: Wolf Benz [mailto:eurojava@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: MyFaces Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Tomahawk] facelets
>
>
> I talked about this with Werner Punz...
> I thought: why not putting this file 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.
>
>
> Yet, it's another thing we can';tr forget to set up and currently the file
> @MF Wiki is indeed to be stitched together manually with is kinda funny
> (unprofessional).
> I think there is room for improvement, either in the form of a
> facelets-integrated download.  (so Toma & Sandbox WITH the taglibs in their
> meta-in dirs) or at least another entry in the download table just for
> facelets: a link to the jsf-facelts.jar, and 2 links, to the respective
> taglib files.
> This, for me, would seem to be its logical place.
>
>
> -Wolf
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/31/07, Erlend Hamnaberg <er...@underdusken.no> wrote:
> > does anyone have an updated tomahawk.taglib.xml ? The one at the wiki
> > does not seem updated.
> >
> > Will Myfaces add full facelets support to its custom components?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Erlend
> >
>
>

RE: [Tomahawk] facelets

["Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121)" <al...@credit-suisse.com>]

instead of supplying two taglib-files... just create two jar-files with
nothing more in it, than
the two taglib files...
Then the deployment of the two jar-files is enough, whereas the
deployment of the two taglib-files 
requires additional work from the user...
 
regards
Alexander

________________________________

From: Wolf Benz [mailto:eurojava@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:56 AM
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: [Tomahawk] facelets


I talked about this with Werner Punz... 
I thought: why not putting this file 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.

Yet, it's another thing we can';tr forget to set up and currently the
file @MF Wiki is indeed to be stitched together manually with is kinda
funny (unprofessional). 
I think there is room for improvement, either in the form of a
facelets-integrated download.  (so Toma & Sandbox WITH the taglibs in
their meta-in dirs) or at least another entry in the download table just
for facelets: a link to the jsf-facelts.jar, and 2 links, to the
respective taglib files.
This, for me, would seem to be its logical place.

-Wolf



On 7/31/07, Erlend Hamnaberg <er...@underdusken.no> wrote: 

	does anyone have an updated tomahawk.taglib.xml ? The one at the
wiki
	does not seem updated.
	
	Will Myfaces add full facelets support to its custom components?
	
	Regards
	
	Erlend
	


 

Re: [Tomahawk] facelets

[Wolf Benz <eu...@gmail.com>]

I talked about this with Werner Punz...I thought: why not putting this file
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.

Yet, it's another thing we can';tr forget to set up and currently the file
@MF Wiki is indeed to be stitched together manually with is kinda funny
(unprofessional).
I think there is room for improvement, either in the form of a
facelets-integrated download.  (so Toma & Sandbox WITH the taglibs in their
meta-in dirs) or at least another entry in the download table just for
facelets: a link to the jsf-facelts.jar, and 2 links, to the respective
taglib files.
This, for me, would seem to be its logical place.

-Wolf



On 7/31/07, Erlend Hamnaberg <er...@underdusken.no> wrote:
>
> does anyone have an updated tomahawk.taglib.xml ? The one at the wiki
> does not seem updated.
>
> Will Myfaces add full facelets support to its custom components?
>
> Regards
>
> Erlend
>