You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> on 2008/01/30 09:53:19 UTC
[tomahawk] why bother with 1.2?
Hi,
I see Leonard is currently doing a lot of work on something called "tomahawk 1.2", which surprised me a little.
I have checked the mail archives, and see some discussions happening around june 2007 regarding having a version of tomahawk specifically for JSF1.2.
But since then, we have started "apache commons". I think therefore that rather than have a tomahawk 1.2, it would be better to split tomahawk up into pieces that live in "commons" modules, or at least extract all the bits we can, then call the remaining bits something other than "tomahawk".
Tomahawk code is really rather old and crusty and I don't see a lot of point moving it as-is to JSF1.2.
Getting a release of tomahawk 1.1.7 out, however, would be a very good idea.
Regards,
Simon
Re: [tomahawk] why bother with 1.2?
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
I think that Leonardo is working on generating the components classes
tlds, facelet-taglibs with the maven-faces-plugin - I'm pretty sure
this makes sense.
As this will then mean there is a switch to either use JSF1.2 or 1.1
in the generation (hopefully this will work) both 1.1.7 and a 1.2
based version could be released.
regards,
Martin
On 1/30/08, Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see Leonard is currently doing a lot of work on something called "tomahawk
> 1.2", which surprised me a little.
>
> I have checked the mail archives, and see some discussions happening around
> june 2007 regarding having a version of tomahawk specifically for JSF1.2.
>
> But since then, we have started "apache commons". I think therefore that
> rather than have a tomahawk 1.2, it would be better to split tomahawk up
> into pieces that live in "commons" modules, or at least extract all the bits
> we can, then call the remaining bits something other than "tomahawk".
>
> Tomahawk code is really rather old and crusty and I don't see a lot of point
> moving it as-is to JSF1.2.
>
> Getting a release of tomahawk 1.1.7 out, however, would be a very good idea.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [tomahawk] why bother with 1.2?
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
I am very invested in Tomahawk. I agree we need to simplify things, but
we MUST maintain Tomahawk. If we do not, then who will use ANY of the
MyFaces component libraries if we let libraries die.
Paul Spencer
Martin Marinschek wrote:
> Simon,
>
> is your conclusion then that Tomahawk should die?
>
> To be honest, my perception is quite different from this.
>
> We have a large user-base, and I'm certainly all for keeping Tomahawk
> up-to-date as much as possible and still improve it where we can.
>
> And, I generally don't see the use of having 10 different ways of
> maintaining components in MyFaces, the first step to a more
> maintainable Tomahawk-component-set must therefore be to change the
> build-system to the one used by MyFaces 1.2, Trinidad and (hopefully
> also) the new commons library!
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 1/30/08, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As being the guy who has created the tomahawk 1.2 branch and spent a lot of
>> time with it, upgrading to 1.2 is not an easy task because as Simon
>> mentioned the code is old and crusty.
>>
>> I agree that non rendering stuff should be moved to commons, I've some
>> candidates on my own from sandbox and tomahawk for commons.
>>
>> For autogeneration, one must generate all the component metadata, this all
>> has been discussed on ML by the way.
>>
>> I still think tomahawk 1.2 makes sense.
>>
>> Cagatay
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2008 11:02 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2008 9:53 AM, Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I see Leonard is currently doing a lot of work on something called
>>> "tomahawk 1.2", which surprised me a little.
>>>> I have checked the mail archives, and see some discussions happening
>>> around june 2007 regarding having a version of tomahawk specifically for
>>> JSF1.2.
>>>
>>> I saw the activity on tomahawk 1.2 as well, and was also a little
>>> surprised, since nothing regarding that has been discussed here on the
>>> ML.
>>>
>>>> But since then, we have started "apache commons". I think therefore that
>>> rather than have a tomahawk 1.2, it would be better to split tomahawk up
>>> into pieces that live in "commons" modules, or at least extract all the
>> bits
>>> we can, then call the remaining bits something other than "tomahawk".
>>>
>>> +1 that sounds good;
>>>
>>> commons can be used in a wider range (like in tobago, trinidad, ice-faces,
>>> ...)
>>> the additional UI comps (like nice (dojo-based) tables etc can become
>>> Tomahawk)
>>> also worth to check for promotions of the sandbox (was recently
>>> already discussed), like
>>> the PPR stuff.
>>>
>>>> Tomahawk code is really rather old and crusty and I don't see a lot of
>>> point moving it as-is to JSF1.2.
>>>> Getting a release of tomahawk 1.1.7 out, however, would be a very good
>>> idea.
>>>
>>> +1 here as well
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> further stuff:
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>>>
>
>
Re: [tomahawk] why bother with 1.2?
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Simon,
is your conclusion then that Tomahawk should die?
To be honest, my perception is quite different from this.
We have a large user-base, and I'm certainly all for keeping Tomahawk
up-to-date as much as possible and still improve it where we can.
And, I generally don't see the use of having 10 different ways of
maintaining components in MyFaces, the first step to a more
maintainable Tomahawk-component-set must therefore be to change the
build-system to the one used by MyFaces 1.2, Trinidad and (hopefully
also) the new commons library!
regards,
Martin
On 1/30/08, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As being the guy who has created the tomahawk 1.2 branch and spent a lot of
> time with it, upgrading to 1.2 is not an easy task because as Simon
> mentioned the code is old and crusty.
>
> I agree that non rendering stuff should be moved to commons, I've some
> candidates on my own from sandbox and tomahawk for commons.
>
> For autogeneration, one must generate all the component metadata, this all
> has been discussed on ML by the way.
>
> I still think tomahawk 1.2 makes sense.
>
> Cagatay
>
> On Jan 30, 2008 11:02 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2008 9:53 AM, Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I see Leonard is currently doing a lot of work on something called
> > "tomahawk 1.2", which surprised me a little.
> > >
> > > I have checked the mail archives, and see some discussions happening
> > around june 2007 regarding having a version of tomahawk specifically for
> > JSF1.2.
> >
> > I saw the activity on tomahawk 1.2 as well, and was also a little
> > surprised, since nothing regarding that has been discussed here on the
> > ML.
> >
> > >
> > > But since then, we have started "apache commons". I think therefore that
> > rather than have a tomahawk 1.2, it would be better to split tomahawk up
> > into pieces that live in "commons" modules, or at least extract all the
> bits
> > we can, then call the remaining bits something other than "tomahawk".
> >
> > +1 that sounds good;
> >
> > commons can be used in a wider range (like in tobago, trinidad, ice-faces,
> > ...)
> > the additional UI comps (like nice (dojo-based) tables etc can become
> > Tomahawk)
> > also worth to check for promotions of the sandbox (was recently
> > already discussed), like
> > the PPR stuff.
> >
> > >
> > > Tomahawk code is really rather old and crusty and I don't see a lot of
> > point moving it as-is to JSF1.2.
> > >
> > > Getting a release of tomahawk 1.1.7 out, however, would be a very good
> > idea.
> >
> > +1 here as well
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: [tomahawk] why bother with 1.2?
Posted by Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
As being the guy who has created the tomahawk 1.2 branch and spent a lot of
time with it, upgrading to 1.2 is not an easy task because as Simon
mentioned the code is old and crusty.
I agree that non rendering stuff should be moved to commons, I've some
candidates on my own from sandbox and tomahawk for commons.
For autogeneration, one must generate all the component metadata, this all
has been discussed on ML by the way.
I still think tomahawk 1.2 makes sense.
Cagatay
On Jan 30, 2008 11:02 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jan 30, 2008 9:53 AM, Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I see Leonard is currently doing a lot of work on something called
> "tomahawk 1.2", which surprised me a little.
> >
> > I have checked the mail archives, and see some discussions happening
> around june 2007 regarding having a version of tomahawk specifically for
> JSF1.2.
>
> I saw the activity on tomahawk 1.2 as well, and was also a little
> surprised, since nothing regarding that has been discussed here on the
> ML.
>
> >
> > But since then, we have started "apache commons". I think therefore that
> rather than have a tomahawk 1.2, it would be better to split tomahawk up
> into pieces that live in "commons" modules, or at least extract all the bits
> we can, then call the remaining bits something other than "tomahawk".
>
> +1 that sounds good;
>
> commons can be used in a wider range (like in tobago, trinidad, ice-faces,
> ...)
> the additional UI comps (like nice (dojo-based) tables etc can become
> Tomahawk)
> also worth to check for promotions of the sandbox (was recently
> already discussed), like
> the PPR stuff.
>
> >
> > Tomahawk code is really rather old and crusty and I don't see a lot of
> point moving it as-is to JSF1.2.
> >
> > Getting a release of tomahawk 1.1.7 out, however, would be a very good
> idea.
>
> +1 here as well
>
> -Matthias
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
Re: [tomahawk] why bother with 1.2?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Jan 30, 2008 9:53 AM, Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see Leonard is currently doing a lot of work on something called "tomahawk 1.2", which surprised me a little.
>
> I have checked the mail archives, and see some discussions happening around june 2007 regarding having a version of tomahawk specifically for JSF1.2.
I saw the activity on tomahawk 1.2 as well, and was also a little
surprised, since nothing regarding that has been discussed here on the
ML.
>
> But since then, we have started "apache commons". I think therefore that rather than have a tomahawk 1.2, it would be better to split tomahawk up into pieces that live in "commons" modules, or at least extract all the bits we can, then call the remaining bits something other than "tomahawk".
+1 that sounds good;
commons can be used in a wider range (like in tobago, trinidad, ice-faces, ...)
the additional UI comps (like nice (dojo-based) tables etc can become Tomahawk)
also worth to check for promotions of the sandbox (was recently
already discussed), like
the PPR stuff.
>
> Tomahawk code is really rather old and crusty and I don't see a lot of point moving it as-is to JSF1.2.
>
> Getting a release of tomahawk 1.1.7 out, however, would be a very good idea.
+1 here as well
-Matthias
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org