Proposal: Make tomahawk stuff 100% RI compliant

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

This proposal might be a bit controversial...

I think we should make everything in tomahawk 100% RI compliant and
remove anything that is not.  We've made (eroneous) claims in the past
that the stuff in the old components.jar will work with the RI but
there are several exceptions.  I think we can get broader
usage/acceptance of the tomahawk stuff if we can legitimately claim
that it works with any implementation.

Rather than dumping everything that does not currently work with the
RI, I recommend we move it to the sandbox and perhaps resurrect it
when we have the time/interest.  There are a few components that have
minor RI quirks that I think we can leave in tomahawk but address them
ASAP.  Other components/extensions have outright dependencies on the
myfaces implementation.

One major component that should be moved out of tomahawk (IMO) is
tiles.  Let me start by saying that I like the Tiles stuff and it is
one thing that attracted me to MyFaces.  But it requires the MyFaces
implementation (uses some view controller stuff.)  We could refactor
it but I am not volunteering for that.  If someone else is prepared to
refactor then I say leave it in tomahawk an refactor.  If not, lets
move it to sandbox.

David Geary (Tiles guru) just checked in some JSF Tiles support into
the Shale project.  If we dropped Tiles from tomahawk (and sandbox)
that might not be the end of the world.

There are other components as well that are not RI compliant.  We
should make a list and figure out what we want to do with them.  At a
*minimum* we should list the stuff in tomahawk that does *not* work
with the RI and publicize that list.

sean

Re: Proposal: Make tomahawk stuff 100% RI compliant

[Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>]

+1 (non-binding) on making sure all the components in Tomahawk work on
the RI (or, for that matter, any other JSF implementation.  That's
part of the whole idea of a common API standard.

That being said, I'm not sure it's really as bleak a prospect as some
might be concerned about.  In particular, if something like the
MyFaces support for Tiles needs a custom JSF ViewHandler, then make
that implementation (a) well behaved with respect to delegating to the
standard version when the specified view is *not* a tile, and (b)
include this ViewHandler implementation in the component library with
a META-INF/faces-config.xml file that registers it.  This way, you
should still be able to run the custom view handler on top of anyone's
JSF runtimes ... simply by following the extensibility design patterns
that JSF provides.

You might want to take a glance at the Tiles integration code (to the
standalone version of Tiles in the Struts Sandbox) for Shale that
David Geary committed a couple of nights ago.  It follows exactly this
sort of pattern, but contains no dependencies on private
implementation classes in the underlying JSF runtime.  So, it'll work
on top of either the RI or MyFaces.

Interestingly, this code (like most of the other optional integrations
in Shale) is almost totally independent of the rest of Shale (there's
a small dependence on a util class for localization, which could be
worked around by using resource bundles directly).  We'll probably
want to come back around to the topic of where small,
JSF-implementation-independent things like this can be managed and
released in a fine grained way, so you can pick and choose just the
parts you want.

Craig

On 7/6/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This proposal might be a bit controversial...
> 
> I think we should make everything in tomahawk 100% RI compliant and
> remove anything that is not.  We've made (eroneous) claims in the past
> that the stuff in the old components.jar will work with the RI but
> there are several exceptions.  I think we can get broader
> usage/acceptance of the tomahawk stuff if we can legitimately claim
> that it works with any implementation.
> 
> Rather than dumping everything that does not currently work with the
> RI, I recommend we move it to the sandbox and perhaps resurrect it
> when we have the time/interest.  There are a few components that have
> minor RI quirks that I think we can leave in tomahawk but address them
> ASAP.  Other components/extensions have outright dependencies on the
> myfaces implementation.
> 
> One major component that should be moved out of tomahawk (IMO) is
> tiles.  Let me start by saying that I like the Tiles stuff and it is
> one thing that attracted me to MyFaces.  But it requires the MyFaces
> implementation (uses some view controller stuff.)  We could refactor
> it but I am not volunteering for that.  If someone else is prepared to
> refactor then I say leave it in tomahawk an refactor.  If not, lets
> move it to sandbox.
> 
> David Geary (Tiles guru) just checked in some JSF Tiles support into
> the Shale project.  If we dropped Tiles from tomahawk (and sandbox)
> that might not be the end of the world.
> 
> There are other components as well that are not RI compliant.  We
> should make a list and figure out what we want to do with them.  At a
> *minimum* we should list the stuff in tomahawk that does *not* work
> with the RI and publicize that list.
> 
> sean
>

Re: Proposal: Make tomahawk stuff 100% RI compliant

[Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com>]

Manfrd it uses

org.apache.myfaces.webapp.webxml.ServletMapping;
org.apache.myfaces.webapp.webxml.WebXml;

-Matthias

On 7/6/05, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for making tomahawk 100% RI compliant
> 
> BUT
> -1 for removing Tiles support - definitely!
> 
> Reason:
> * Tiles support is one of the key features of MyFaces
> * Tiles support should not (and "is not" AFAIK) RI incompatible
> 
> Where does it use MyFaces impl stuff? The special
> JspTilesViewHandlerImpl does not extend any specific base class and
> uses delegation pattern. The only two references to
> org.apache.myfaces.* are shared classes, so where is the problem?
> 
> -Manfred
> 
> 
> 2005/7/6, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>:
> > This proposal might be a bit controversial...
> >
> > I think we should make everything in tomahawk 100% RI compliant and
> > remove anything that is not.  We've made (eroneous) claims in the past
> > that the stuff in the old components.jar will work with the RI but
> > there are several exceptions.  I think we can get broader
> > usage/acceptance of the tomahawk stuff if we can legitimately claim
> > that it works with any implementation.
> >
> > Rather than dumping everything that does not currently work with the
> > RI, I recommend we move it to the sandbox and perhaps resurrect it
> > when we have the time/interest.  There are a few components that have
> > minor RI quirks that I think we can leave in tomahawk but address them
> > ASAP.  Other components/extensions have outright dependencies on the
> > myfaces implementation.
> >
> > One major component that should be moved out of tomahawk (IMO) is
> > tiles.  Let me start by saying that I like the Tiles stuff and it is
> > one thing that attracted me to MyFaces.  But it requires the MyFaces
> > implementation (uses some view controller stuff.)  We could refactor
> > it but I am not volunteering for that.  If someone else is prepared to
> > refactor then I say leave it in tomahawk an refactor.  If not, lets
> > move it to sandbox.
> >
> > David Geary (Tiles guru) just checked in some JSF Tiles support into
> > the Shale project.  If we dropped Tiles from tomahawk (and sandbox)
> > that might not be the end of the world.
> >
> > There are other components as well that are not RI compliant.  We
> > should make a list and figure out what we want to do with them.  At a
> > *minimum* we should list the stuff in tomahawk that does *not* work
> > with the RI and publicize that list.
> >
> > sean
> >
> 


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

Re: Proposal: Make tomahawk stuff 100% RI compliant

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

Remember, I like the Tiles support too (and said it was a key to my
discovering MyFaces)

;-)

So I'm not saying we remove it, but that we should consider removing
it *or* making it compatible with RI.  It sounds like we have enough
support for "keeping" it so lets figurre out how to make it work with
the RI.

Its been a while since I investigated this but I definitely remember
there was a problem.  Of course if I'm wrong, that's good news. 
Someone should try it out and prove it.  I think it required
extensions filter or something like that ...

sean



On 7/6/05, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for making tomahawk 100% RI compliant
> 
> BUT
> -1 for removing Tiles support - definitely!
> 
> Reason:
> * Tiles support is one of the key features of MyFaces
> * Tiles support should not (and "is not" AFAIK) RI incompatible
> 
> Where does it use MyFaces impl stuff? The special
> JspTilesViewHandlerImpl does not extend any specific base class and
> uses delegation pattern. The only two references to
> org.apache.myfaces.* are shared classes, so where is the problem?
> 
> -Manfred
> 
> 
> 2005/7/6, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>:
> > This proposal might be a bit controversial...
> >
> > I think we should make everything in tomahawk 100% RI compliant and
> > remove anything that is not.  We've made (eroneous) claims in the past
> > that the stuff in the old components.jar will work with the RI but
> > there are several exceptions.  I think we can get broader
> > usage/acceptance of the tomahawk stuff if we can legitimately claim
> > that it works with any implementation.
> >
> > Rather than dumping everything that does not currently work with the
> > RI, I recommend we move it to the sandbox and perhaps resurrect it
> > when we have the time/interest.  There are a few components that have
> > minor RI quirks that I think we can leave in tomahawk but address them
> > ASAP.  Other components/extensions have outright dependencies on the
> > myfaces implementation.
> >
> > One major component that should be moved out of tomahawk (IMO) is
> > tiles.  Let me start by saying that I like the Tiles stuff and it is
> > one thing that attracted me to MyFaces.  But it requires the MyFaces
> > implementation (uses some view controller stuff.)  We could refactor
> > it but I am not volunteering for that.  If someone else is prepared to
> > refactor then I say leave it in tomahawk an refactor.  If not, lets
> > move it to sandbox.
> >
> > David Geary (Tiles guru) just checked in some JSF Tiles support into
> > the Shale project.  If we dropped Tiles from tomahawk (and sandbox)
> > that might not be the end of the world.
> >
> > There are other components as well that are not RI compliant.  We
> > should make a list and figure out what we want to do with them.  At a
> > *minimum* we should list the stuff in tomahawk that does *not* work
> > with the RI and publicize that list.
> >
> > sean
> >
>

Re: Proposal: Make tomahawk stuff 100% RI compliant

[Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>]

+1 for making tomahawk 100% RI compliant 

BUT 
-1 for removing Tiles support - definitely!

Reason:
* Tiles support is one of the key features of MyFaces
* Tiles support should not (and "is not" AFAIK) RI incompatible

Where does it use MyFaces impl stuff? The special
JspTilesViewHandlerImpl does not extend any specific base class and
uses delegation pattern. The only two references to
org.apache.myfaces.* are shared classes, so where is the problem?

-Manfred


2005/7/6, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>:
> This proposal might be a bit controversial...
> 
> I think we should make everything in tomahawk 100% RI compliant and
> remove anything that is not.  We've made (eroneous) claims in the past
> that the stuff in the old components.jar will work with the RI but
> there are several exceptions.  I think we can get broader
> usage/acceptance of the tomahawk stuff if we can legitimately claim
> that it works with any implementation.
> 
> Rather than dumping everything that does not currently work with the
> RI, I recommend we move it to the sandbox and perhaps resurrect it
> when we have the time/interest.  There are a few components that have
> minor RI quirks that I think we can leave in tomahawk but address them
> ASAP.  Other components/extensions have outright dependencies on the
> myfaces implementation.
> 
> One major component that should be moved out of tomahawk (IMO) is
> tiles.  Let me start by saying that I like the Tiles stuff and it is
> one thing that attracted me to MyFaces.  But it requires the MyFaces
> implementation (uses some view controller stuff.)  We could refactor
> it but I am not volunteering for that.  If someone else is prepared to
> refactor then I say leave it in tomahawk an refactor.  If not, lets
> move it to sandbox.
> 
> David Geary (Tiles guru) just checked in some JSF Tiles support into
> the Shale project.  If we dropped Tiles from tomahawk (and sandbox)
> that might not be the end of the world.
> 
> There are other components as well that are not RI compliant.  We
> should make a list and figure out what we want to do with them.  At a
> *minimum* we should list the stuff in tomahawk that does *not* work
> with the RI and publicize that list.
> 
> sean
>

Re: Proposal: Make tomahawk stuff 100% RI compliant

[Bryan Headley <Br...@notes.ntrs.com>]

Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote on 07/06/2005 
08:43:17 AM:

> Woopa,
> 
> you are running into some controversion now ;)
> 
> tiles support should _not_ be dropped from anywhere, I use it in
> several applications...

I agree. We need to keep Tiles support in.

Bryan

Re: Proposal: Make tomahawk stuff 100% RI compliant

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

Woopa,

you are running into some controversion now ;)

tiles support should _not_ be dropped from anywhere, I use it in
several applications...

The only thing that is different in using tiles is the
JSPTilesViewHandler, and you can use it both with MyFaces and the
reference implementation, afaik.

regards,

Martin

On 7/6/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This proposal might be a bit controversial...
> 
> I think we should make everything in tomahawk 100% RI compliant and
> remove anything that is not.  We've made (eroneous) claims in the past
> that the stuff in the old components.jar will work with the RI but
> there are several exceptions.  I think we can get broader
> usage/acceptance of the tomahawk stuff if we can legitimately claim
> that it works with any implementation.
> 
> Rather than dumping everything that does not currently work with the
> RI, I recommend we move it to the sandbox and perhaps resurrect it
> when we have the time/interest.  There are a few components that have
> minor RI quirks that I think we can leave in tomahawk but address them
> ASAP.  Other components/extensions have outright dependencies on the
> myfaces implementation.
> 
> One major component that should be moved out of tomahawk (IMO) is
> tiles.  Let me start by saying that I like the Tiles stuff and it is
> one thing that attracted me to MyFaces.  But it requires the MyFaces
> implementation (uses some view controller stuff.)  We could refactor
> it but I am not volunteering for that.  If someone else is prepared to
> refactor then I say leave it in tomahawk an refactor.  If not, lets
> move it to sandbox.
> 
> David Geary (Tiles guru) just checked in some JSF Tiles support into
> the Shale project.  If we dropped Tiles from tomahawk (and sandbox)
> that might not be the end of the world.
> 
> There are other components as well that are not RI compliant.  We
> should make a list and figure out what we want to do with them.  At a
> *minimum* we should list the stuff in tomahawk that does *not* work
> with the RI and publicize that list.
> 
> sean
>

Re: Proposal: Make tomahawk stuff 100% RI compliant

[Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com>]

Sean,

did you also drop the WML stuff?

-Matthias

On 7/6/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This proposal might be a bit controversial...
> 
> I think we should make everything in tomahawk 100% RI compliant and
> remove anything that is not.  We've made (eroneous) claims in the past
> that the stuff in the old components.jar will work with the RI but
> there are several exceptions.  I think we can get broader
> usage/acceptance of the tomahawk stuff if we can legitimately claim
> that it works with any implementation.
> 
> Rather than dumping everything that does not currently work with the
> RI, I recommend we move it to the sandbox and perhaps resurrect it
> when we have the time/interest.  There are a few components that have
> minor RI quirks that I think we can leave in tomahawk but address them
> ASAP.  Other components/extensions have outright dependencies on the
> myfaces implementation.
> 
> One major component that should be moved out of tomahawk (IMO) is
> tiles.  Let me start by saying that I like the Tiles stuff and it is
> one thing that attracted me to MyFaces.  But it requires the MyFaces
> implementation (uses some view controller stuff.)  We could refactor
> it but I am not volunteering for that.  If someone else is prepared to
> refactor then I say leave it in tomahawk an refactor.  If not, lets
> move it to sandbox.
> 
> David Geary (Tiles guru) just checked in some JSF Tiles support into
> the Shale project.  If we dropped Tiles from tomahawk (and sandbox)
> that might not be the end of the world.
> 
> There are other components as well that are not RI compliant.  We
> should make a list and figure out what we want to do with them.  At a
> *minimum* we should list the stuff in tomahawk that does *not* work
> with the RI and publicize that list.
> 
> sean
> 


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf