You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> on 2007/10/24 16:38:59 UTC
[vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Hi!
Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
to a component.
[ ] +1 yea, lets start
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
from another of our modules)
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
David,
Yes, attaching your goodies as attachment to a jira issue will be fine.
Thanks in advance,
Manfred
> Hi ,
>
> While working in my projects i had developed a good collection of static
> utility methods for navigation handling, scope handling, resource
> loading handling, message handling and other misc which i had used
> during application development. They are well documented(complete
> explanatory javadocs). I am ready to share them for this commons
> project. can anyone pls tell me how to do that ... Should i submit them
> as patch (in enhancement raised in jira) after the project has been
> created in jira??
>
> Regards,
> David Brainard Sounthiraraj.
>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by David Brainard <sd...@gmail.com>.
Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>>> 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Shouldn't it be possible to have a stable API even without separating it
>>> out?
>>>
>>>
>> Have a look at http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/apidocs/org/apache/commons/beanutils/BeanUtils.html
>> for an example how static utils CAN be clearly separated into api and impl.
>>
>>
> I am not sure if this is the best possible example ;-)
> The reason they splitted these classes semms to be that the
> implementation is stateful.
> Means, they cache stuff on ClassLoader level (ContextClassLoaderLocal)
> and therefore they need an instance to hold the datastructure instead of
> just simple utility methods.
>
> In our case we might just end up with the delegator pattern, which seems
> to be overly complex, doesn't it?
>
>
>>>> 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> /home/im/projects/myfaces12/commons/myfaces-commons/myfaces-commons-api/src/main/java
>>> /home/im/projects/myfaces12/commons/myfaces-commons/myfaces-commons-impl/src/main/java
>>>
>>> I think the middle part is overly redundant.
>>>
>>>
>> It's simply faster to scan only the
>> leaves of your folder tree structure than to scan structurally: "Ok,
>> here is the folder 'api' - hmm which api?
>>
> <snip/>
>
> Nice story, you saved my day :-)
>
> Ok, so lets try it that way if no one else has a better argument against.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
>
Hi ,
While working in my projects i had developed a good collection of static
utility methods for navigation handling, scope handling, resource
loading handling, message handling and other misc which i had used
during application development. They are well documented(complete
explanatory javadocs). I am ready to share them for this commons
project. can anyone pls tell me how to do that ... Should i submit them
as patch (in enhancement raised in jira) after the project has been
created in jira??
Regards,
David Brainard Sounthiraraj.
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
>>> 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
>>>
>> Shouldn't it be possible to have a stable API even without separating it
>> out?
>>
>
> Have a look at http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/apidocs/org/apache/commons/beanutils/BeanUtils.html
> for an example how static utils CAN be clearly separated into api and impl.
>
I am not sure if this is the best possible example ;-)
The reason they splitted these classes semms to be that the
implementation is stateful.
Means, they cache stuff on ClassLoader level (ContextClassLoaderLocal)
and therefore they need an instance to hold the datastructure instead of
just simple utility methods.
In our case we might just end up with the delegator pattern, which seems
to be overly complex, doesn't it?
>>> 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
>>>
>>>
>> /home/im/projects/myfaces12/commons/myfaces-commons/myfaces-commons-api/src/main/java
>> /home/im/projects/myfaces12/commons/myfaces-commons/myfaces-commons-impl/src/main/java
>>
>> I think the middle part is overly redundant.
>>
>
> It's simply faster to scan only the
> leaves of your folder tree structure than to scan structurally: "Ok,
> here is the folder 'api' - hmm which api?
<snip/>
Nice story, you saved my day :-)
Ok, so lets try it that way if no one else has a better argument against.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 10/28/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
> > 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> > by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> > classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> > them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
> >
> I wanted this to be an easy utils project and not yet-another-framework.
> In fact, there might be stuff in there which has an API and an IMPL, but
> this is not necessarily required. Static utils classes wont have an API.
> Shouldn't it be possible to have a stable API even without separating it
> out?
Have a look at http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/apidocs/org/apache/commons/beanutils/BeanUtils.html
for an example how static utils CAN be clearly separated into api and impl.
The static method holders ("Utils" classes) are located in the api
subproject, the default implementation bean would live in the impl src
root.
> > 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> > seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> > good reasons to do this.
> > So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> > "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> > "myfaces-commons-impl".
> >
> I don't like that but wouldn't veto if we think this should be done that
> way, just, remember how this would look like:
>
> /home/im/projects/myfaces12/commons/myfaces-commons/myfaces-commons-api/src/main/java
> /home/im/projects/myfaces12/commons/myfaces-commons/myfaces-commons-impl/src/main/java
>
> I think the middle part is overly redundant.
>
There IS redundant information in the path. Yes. But the reason why
many developers prefer this naming scheme is human not technical.
Human brains are faster in recognizing icons and patterns than
thinking in hierachical structures. Imagine having many expanded
folders in your IDE or Explorer. It's simply faster to scan only the
leaves of your folder tree structure than to scan structurally: "Ok,
here is the folder 'api' - hmm which api? Ah, yes, it's attached to
something called 'commons'. Okaaaay. Hey, it's dangling on that
'myfaces' node. Yippieh, I found the 'myfaces-commons-api' folder!"
Ever wondered why most people like "labelling" their documents (or
emails or bookmarks!) more than file them in hierachical structures? I
admit, I once was a structure fanatic. My bookmarks all lived in deep
folder structures. And I seldom found them again. :-)
GMail, GMarks, Picasa changed my life...
;-)
--Manfred
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
>
I wanted this to be an easy utils project and not yet-another-framework.
In fact, there might be stuff in there which has an API and an IMPL, but
this is not necessarily required. Static utils classes wont have an API.
Shouldn't it be possible to have a stable API even without separating it
out?
> 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> good reasons to do this.
> So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> "myfaces-commons-impl".
>
I don't like that but wouldn't veto if we think this should be done that
way, just, remember how this would look like:
/home/im/projects/myfaces12/commons/myfaces-commons/myfaces-commons-api/src/main/java
/home/im/projects/myfaces12/commons/myfaces-commons/myfaces-commons-impl/src/main/java
I think the middle part is overly redundant.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
> issues/prerequisites:
>
> 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
+1
>
> 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> good reasons to do this.
> So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> "myfaces-commons-impl".
+1
>
> BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
> like this one:
> public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
> FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
> NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
> facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
> navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null, outcome);
> }
>
> Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
> good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
> customer project... ;-)
+1 let's create some (one) static beast(s) .. :-)
-Matze
>
>
> -Manfred
>
>
>
> On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> >
> > The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> > to a component.
> >
> > [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> >
> >
> > I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> > from another of our modules)
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Mario
> >
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On 10/27/07, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> The NonFacesRequestServlet is also a candidate for myfaces-commons.
+1
>
> Should we start a myfaces-common-fileupload project, too?
+1
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
>
> Manfred Geiler wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
> > issues/prerequisites:
> >
> > 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> > by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> > classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> > them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
> >
> > 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> > seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> > good reasons to do this.
> > So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> > "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> > "myfaces-commons-impl".
> >
> > BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
> > like this one:
> > public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
> > FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
> > NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
> > facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
> > navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null, outcome);
> > }
> >
> > Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
> > good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
> > customer project... ;-)
> >
> >
> > -Manfred
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> >>
> >> The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> >> to a component.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> >> [ ] +0
> >> [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> >> from another of our modules)
> >>
> >> Ciao,
> >> Mario
> >>
> >>
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>.
+1
The NonFacesRequestServlet is also a candidate for myfaces-commons.
Should we start a myfaces-common-fileupload project, too?
Regards
Bernd
Manfred Geiler wrote:
> +1
>
> But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
> issues/prerequisites:
>
> 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
>
> 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> good reasons to do this.
> So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> "myfaces-commons-impl".
>
> BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
> like this one:
> public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
> FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
> NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
> facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
> navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null, outcome);
> }
>
> Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
> good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
> customer project... ;-)
>
>
> -Manfred
>
>
>
> On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
>>
>> The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
>> to a component.
>>
>> [ ] +1 yea, lets start
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
>>
>>
>> I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
>> from another of our modules)
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Mario
>>
>>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Yes, this is perhaps another reason why this might best be placed
under Tomahawk.
We already have a Tomahawk sandbox in place for both Jdk 1.5 and
pre-1.5. Once a sandbox component is ready for promotion, part of
the evaluation could be deciding if it should go into the
works-with-anything commons project or the less-compatible Tomahawk
project.
On 10/27/07, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, we need to be careful about what goes in. And we should agree on
> > some rules here. Is lazy consensus enough? Or should every addition
> > require an official vote (on a regarding jira issue)?
>
> My opinion on this would be to have a sandbox where components can be
> put without vote, and only with an official vote get included in the
> official branch.
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, we need to be careful about what goes in. And we should agree on
> some rules here. Is lazy consensus enough? Or should every addition
> require an official vote (on a regarding jira issue)?
My opinion on this would be to have a sandbox where components can be
put without vote, and only with an official vote get included in the
official branch.
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Ron Smits <ro...@gmail.com>.
But if you call it myfaces basics, or myfaces components aren't you then at
least sending the message that this is myfaces impl specific?.
>From following the thread here I was under the impression that the
components for this common project would be usable, like the apache commons,
in JSF projects. Not just myfaces specific, but general jsf projects. At
work we use tomahawk 1.1.5 for example, but I have done several projects
where the sun implementation was used instead of the myfaces one (don't ask
me why, just repeat "office politics" a few times). This kind of cross usage
was what I was expecting in the commons project we are talking about here.
Ron Smits
On 10/27/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also, just as another side note, other than requests for programming
> apis to make JSF AJAX easier, I don't really recall end-users asking
> for convenience JSF programming APIs. Most of those who talk about
> it are already using them in Tomahawk as Tomahawk committers.
>
> But there have been a number of end-users asking for the ability to
> use t:saveState or validators or converters from Tomahawk (and
> t:dataList, although no one is interested in the html-rendering
> functionality of this component, just the enhanced repeat loop it
> provides). This is why we're proposing it.
>
> And since I see that I didn't directly answer your comment on "MyFaces
> Base Components", I'm ok with that name instead of MyFaces Commons :-)
>
> In fact, I think maybe "MyFaces Basics" makes even more sense.
>
>
> On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, we need to be careful about what goes in. And we should agree on
> > some rules here. Is lazy consensus enough? Or should every addition
> > require an official vote (on a regarding jira issue)?
> >
> > Mike, the original intention of the jsf commons project was a
> > collection of useful jsf stuff (helpers and utilities) that is
> > convenient for component and application (and jsf implementation)
> > developers. This includes renderkit (html) specific stuff. There is no
> > harm in html specific stuff as long as it is really useful for many
> > people and it is located in a clearly separated java package.
> >
> > Having common (renderkit independent) "components" was not the primary
> > goal AFAIR. I'd rather see these in another new project: something
> > like "MyFaces Base Components"
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/27/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think we're starting to confuse the focus here.
> > >
> > > There's a difference between common components that can be used with
> > > any JSF project, and common programming utilities, many of which may
> > > be renderkit (like html) specific.
> > >
> > > I'm ok with common programming utilities being in this project, but
> > > we're going to need to be careful regarding what we put into it. But
> > > we do need to be careful about what goes in it.
> > >
> > > On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
> > > > issues/prerequisites:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level,
> better
> > > > by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> > > > classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend
> on
> > > > them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> > > > seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there
> are
> > > > good reasons to do this.
> > > > So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> > > > "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> > > > "myfaces-commons-impl".
> > > >
> > > > BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
> > > > like this one:
> > > > public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
> > > > FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance
> ();
> > > > NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
> > > > facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
> > > > navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null,
> outcome);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
> > > > good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
> > > > customer project... ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Manfred
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> > > > >
> > > > > The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not
> belong
> > > > > to a component.
> > > > >
> > > > > [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> > > > > [ ] +0
> > > > > [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just
> copy it
> > > > > from another of our modules)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ciao,
> > > > > Mario
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > Development and Courses in English and
> > German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
--
I reject your reality and substitute my own
--- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de>.
Hi,
nice name yes, but i think this project should not be for "MyFaces
Basics" but for a kind of
jsf commons.
I would prefer a name like "MyFaces JSF Commons" to make clear this
is a library useable for all jsf implementations and librarys like the
apache-commons-* for java projects.
Imho the best name would be apache-commons-jsf, but i don't think this
is possible while having this under the myfaces umbrella.
Regards,
Volker
2007/10/28, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>:
> Hi!
> > In fact, I think maybe "MyFaces Basics" makes even more sense.
> >
> Nice name, indeed.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> In fact, I think maybe "MyFaces Basics" makes even more sense.
>
Nice name, indeed.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Also, just as another side note, other than requests for programming
apis to make JSF AJAX easier, I don't really recall end-users asking
for convenience JSF programming APIs. Most of those who talk about
it are already using them in Tomahawk as Tomahawk committers.
But there have been a number of end-users asking for the ability to
use t:saveState or validators or converters from Tomahawk (and
t:dataList, although no one is interested in the html-rendering
functionality of this component, just the enhanced repeat loop it
provides). This is why we're proposing it.
And since I see that I didn't directly answer your comment on "MyFaces
Base Components", I'm ok with that name instead of MyFaces Commons :-)
In fact, I think maybe "MyFaces Basics" makes even more sense.
On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, we need to be careful about what goes in. And we should agree on
> some rules here. Is lazy consensus enough? Or should every addition
> require an official vote (on a regarding jira issue)?
>
> Mike, the original intention of the jsf commons project was a
> collection of useful jsf stuff (helpers and utilities) that is
> convenient for component and application (and jsf implementation)
> developers. This includes renderkit (html) specific stuff. There is no
> harm in html specific stuff as long as it is really useful for many
> people and it is located in a clearly separated java package.
>
> Having common (renderkit independent) "components" was not the primary
> goal AFAIR. I'd rather see these in another new project: something
> like "MyFaces Base Components"
>
> WDYT?
>
> --Manfred
>
>
>
> On 10/27/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think we're starting to confuse the focus here.
> >
> > There's a difference between common components that can be used with
> > any JSF project, and common programming utilities, many of which may
> > be renderkit (like html) specific.
> >
> > I'm ok with common programming utilities being in this project, but
> > we're going to need to be careful regarding what we put into it. But
> > we do need to be careful about what goes in it.
> >
> > On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
> > > issues/prerequisites:
> > >
> > > 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> > > by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> > > classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> > > them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
> > >
> > > 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> > > seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> > > good reasons to do this.
> > > So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> > > "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> > > "myfaces-commons-impl".
> > >
> > > BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
> > > like this one:
> > > public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
> > > FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
> > > NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
> > > facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
> > > navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null, outcome);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
> > > good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
> > > customer project... ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > -Manfred
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> > > >
> > > > The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> > > > to a component.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> > > > [ ] +0
> > > > [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> > > > from another of our modules)
> > > >
> > > > Ciao,
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
No, it's not. There are components in Tomahawk that depend on
javascript. There are components in tomahawk that depend on MyFaces
core (aliasBean). There are components in Tomahawk that depend on
dojo. There are components in Tomahawk that depends on the MyFaces
form.
Right now, Tomahawk is a mix of many different things, some of which
are useful in Tobago and most of which are not useful in Tobago.
Again, I think that this project makes more sense as a subproject of
Tomahawk (the truely-independent-works-anywhere part) rather than as a
separate project. But the hope is that we will produce a
components-that-work-anywhere.jar which can be dropped into Tobago or
Trinidad or WAP or Seam or Xforms-renderkit or Swing-Renderkit or
whatever.
On 10/27/07, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The project Mario/Volker/Myself/others proposed was for
> > renderkit-independent components, not for common programming apis.
>
> Isn't this what tomahawk already is?
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
> The project Mario/Volker/Myself/others proposed was for
> renderkit-independent components, not for common programming apis.
Isn't this what tomahawk already is?
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Manfred, I think we're using the same terminology to mean different
things, which is what I was afraid of.
The project Mario/Volker/Myself/others proposed was for
renderkit-independent components, not for common programming apis.
Ie, the goal is to make available to Tobago and Trinidad those parts
of Tomahawk which are not incompatible. Also, it's to move such
things out of Tobago (and maybe Trinidad) into a common place (like
the non-Faces-request-processor-servlet-filter).
Perhaps we still need to work out naming conventions, but let's be
clear that the proposed purpose of this project proposal deals with
components not apis.
On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, we need to be careful about what goes in. And we should agree on
> some rules here. Is lazy consensus enough? Or should every addition
> require an official vote (on a regarding jira issue)?
>
> Mike, the original intention of the jsf commons project was a
> collection of useful jsf stuff (helpers and utilities) that is
> convenient for component and application (and jsf implementation)
> developers. This includes renderkit (html) specific stuff. There is no
> harm in html specific stuff as long as it is really useful for many
> people and it is located in a clearly separated java package.
>
> Having common (renderkit independent) "components" was not the primary
> goal AFAIR. I'd rather see these in another new project: something
> like "MyFaces Base Components"
>
> WDYT?
>
> --Manfred
>
>
>
> On 10/27/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think we're starting to confuse the focus here.
> >
> > There's a difference between common components that can be used with
> > any JSF project, and common programming utilities, many of which may
> > be renderkit (like html) specific.
> >
> > I'm ok with common programming utilities being in this project, but
> > we're going to need to be careful regarding what we put into it. But
> > we do need to be careful about what goes in it.
> >
> > On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
> > > issues/prerequisites:
> > >
> > > 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> > > by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> > > classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> > > them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
> > >
> > > 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> > > seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> > > good reasons to do this.
> > > So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> > > "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> > > "myfaces-commons-impl".
> > >
> > > BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
> > > like this one:
> > > public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
> > > FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
> > > NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
> > > facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
> > > navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null, outcome);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
> > > good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
> > > customer project... ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > -Manfred
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> > > >
> > > > The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> > > > to a component.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> > > > [ ] +0
> > > > [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> > > > from another of our modules)
> > > >
> > > > Ciao,
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
Yes, we need to be careful about what goes in. And we should agree on
some rules here. Is lazy consensus enough? Or should every addition
require an official vote (on a regarding jira issue)?
Mike, the original intention of the jsf commons project was a
collection of useful jsf stuff (helpers and utilities) that is
convenient for component and application (and jsf implementation)
developers. This includes renderkit (html) specific stuff. There is no
harm in html specific stuff as long as it is really useful for many
people and it is located in a clearly separated java package.
Having common (renderkit independent) "components" was not the primary
goal AFAIR. I'd rather see these in another new project: something
like "MyFaces Base Components"
WDYT?
--Manfred
On 10/27/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we're starting to confuse the focus here.
>
> There's a difference between common components that can be used with
> any JSF project, and common programming utilities, many of which may
> be renderkit (like html) specific.
>
> I'm ok with common programming utilities being in this project, but
> we're going to need to be careful regarding what we put into it. But
> we do need to be careful about what goes in it.
>
> On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
> > issues/prerequisites:
> >
> > 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> > by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> > classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> > them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
> >
> > 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> > seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> > good reasons to do this.
> > So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> > "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> > "myfaces-commons-impl".
> >
> > BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
> > like this one:
> > public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
> > FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
> > NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
> > facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
> > navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null, outcome);
> > }
> >
> > Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
> > good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
> > customer project... ;-)
> >
> >
> > -Manfred
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> > >
> > > The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> > > to a component.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> > > from another of our modules)
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > > Mario
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
I think we're starting to confuse the focus here.
There's a difference between common components that can be used with
any JSF project, and common programming utilities, many of which may
be renderkit (like html) specific.
I'm ok with common programming utilities being in this project, but
we're going to need to be careful regarding what we put into it. But
we do need to be careful about what goes in it.
On 10/27/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
> issues/prerequisites:
>
> 1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
> by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
> classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
> them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
>
> 2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
> seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
> good reasons to do this.
> So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
> "myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
> "myfaces-commons-impl".
>
> BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
> like this one:
> public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
> FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
> NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
> facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
> navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null, outcome);
> }
>
> Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
> good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
> customer project... ;-)
>
>
> -Manfred
>
>
>
> On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> >
> > The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> > to a component.
> >
> > [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> >
> >
> > I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> > from another of our modules)
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Mario
> >
> >
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1
But to avoid common design mistakes I propose some additional
issues/prerequisites:
1. Clear separation of API and IMPL (at least on package level, better
by separate artifacts). Mind that the idea behind these commons
classes is that many other projects use them - and therefore depend on
them. So a clear and stable API is essential.
2. Let's start to name svn folders the same as the artifacts. This
seems to be best practice in many other maven projects. And there are
good reasons to do this.
So, the new project should be located in a folder named like
"myfaces-commons" with two sub folders "myfaces-commons-api" and
"myfaces-commons-impl".
BTW, some other candidates for commons classes are "trivial" utils
like this one:
public static void doNavigation(String outcome) {
FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
NavigationHandler navigationHandler =
facesContext.getApplication().getNavigationHandler();
navigationHandler.handleNavigation(facesContext, null, outcome);
}
Yes, no big deal. But convenient, though, to have this code in one
good place instead of inventing a new "JSFUtils" class for every new
customer project... ;-)
-Manfred
On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
>
> The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> to a component.
>
> [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
>
>
> I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> from another of our modules)
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de>.
Hi,
+1
although the thing from tomahawk i was missing most, aliasBean, did
not fit into tobagos layout system.
But things like converters and validators should work with any implementation.
Regards,
Volker
2007/10/24, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>:
> Hi!
>
> Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
>
> The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> to a component.
>
> [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
>
>
> I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> from another of our modules)
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
ja, same here
+1
On 10/24/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, sounds good.
>
> +1 for both suggestions.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 10/24/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, let's clarify this to be all the stuff which is not
> > renderkit-specific.
> >
> > Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
> > reasonable[1] combination of
> > JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
> > then it should be available here.
> >
> > [1] Reasonable being that if the library in question goes out of its
> > way to be incompatible with expected JSF behavior, then we consider
> > including it anyway.
> >
> >
> > On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> > >
> > > The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> > > to a component.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> > > from another of our modules)
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > > Mario
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
ok, sounds good.
+1 for both suggestions.
regards,
Martin
On 10/24/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, let's clarify this to be all the stuff which is not
> renderkit-specific.
>
> Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
> reasonable[1] combination of
> JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
> then it should be available here.
>
> [1] Reasonable being that if the library in question goes out of its
> way to be incompatible with expected JSF behavior, then we consider
> including it anyway.
>
>
> On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
> >
> > The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> > to a component.
> >
> > [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
> >
> >
> > I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> > from another of our modules)
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Mario
> >
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Actually, let's clarify this to be all the stuff which is not
renderkit-specific.
Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
reasonable[1] combination of
JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
then it should be available here.
[1] Reasonable being that if the library in question goes out of its
way to be incompatible with expected JSF behavior, then we consider
including it anyway.
On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
>
> The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> to a component.
>
> [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
>
>
> I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> from another of our modules)
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
We're discussing two completely different concepts here.
One is an api for writing new components. For component developers.
One is a library of common renderkit-independent components for use in
JSF applications. For application developers.
Attempting to combine them is going to shortchange one side or the other.
Either the library is going to end up with dependencies on
renderkit-specific stuff, or the api is going to be severely limited
in what it provides.
On 10/31/07, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i don't understand what should go into the utils and what into the
> components parts.
>
> I think we can mix static utils with renderkid independent components
> in one library.
>
> for renderkid dependend compeonents we have already tomahawk, tobago
> and trinidad.
>
>
> Regards,
> Volker
>
> 2007/10/31, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new project
> > and what not:
> > Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient base
> > classes?
> >
> > I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
> >
> > Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
> > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
> >
> > For the artifact names I propose:
> > "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
> >
> > The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile dependency
> > to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> > * Myfaces Level Project ;-)
> > ** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those artifacts
> > or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > > True!
> > >
> > > ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
> > > And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
> > >
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> > > On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
> > > > It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
> > commons.apache.org.
> > > > If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
> > > > myfaces project.
> > > >
> > > > And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
> > > > apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
> > > > users.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Volker
> > > >
> > > > 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> > > > > Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion. But I
> > agree
> > > > > with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like the
> > > > > apache commons project
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > > > > > your fault of course.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > > > > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > > > > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > > > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
> > discussions
> > > > > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > > > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > > > > > alternatives? ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > > > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Manfred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > Mario
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > > > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > > > > German
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > 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: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
The point is:
For myfaces-jsfcommons-components we must provide additional stuff in the
jar. You know: taglib, faces-config.xml, ...
This is what we do NOT want in the myfaces-jsfcommons-utils jars to
- keep it simple, and
- avoid unwanted side-effects
Please mind: Not yet sure, but the myfaces-jsfcommons-utils might propably
become a jar that myfaces-core-impl depends on in the future. So, we should
really keep all real components out of it. Which on the same time does not
forbid convenient Renderer utils in myfaces-jsfcommons-utils of course.
--Manfred
On 10/31/07, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> i don't understand what should go into the utils and what into the
> components parts.
>
> I think we can mix static utils with renderkid independent components
> in one library.
>
> for renderkid dependend compeonents we have already tomahawk, tobago
> and trinidad.
>
>
> Regards,
> Volker
>
> 2007/10/31, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new
> project
> > and what not:
> > Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient
> base
> > classes?
> >
> > I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
> >
> > Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
> > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
> >
> > For the artifact names I propose:
> > "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
> >
> > The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile
> dependency
> > to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> > * Myfaces Level Project ;-)
> > ** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those
> artifacts
> > or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > > True!
> > >
> > > ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
> > > And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
> > >
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> > > On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
> > > > It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
> > commons.apache.org.
> > > > If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
> > > > myfaces project.
> > > >
> > > > And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
> > > > apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
> > > > users.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Volker
> > > >
> > > > 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> > > > > Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion.
> But I
> > agree
> > > > > with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like
> the
> > > > > apache commons project
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list -
> not
> > > > > > your fault of course.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to
> Native
> > > > > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those
> names
> > > > > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > > > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
> > discussions
> > > > > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > > > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of
> suggest
> > > > > > alternatives? ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > > > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Manfred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons
> or
> > > > > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > Mario
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > > > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > > > > German
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > 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
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de>.
Hi,
i don't understand what should go into the utils and what into the
components parts.
I think we can mix static utils with renderkid independent components
in one library.
for renderkid dependend compeonents we have already tomahawk, tobago
and trinidad.
Regards,
Volker
2007/10/31, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new project
> and what not:
> Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient base
> classes?
>
> I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
>
> Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
> which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
>
> For the artifact names I propose:
> "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
>
> The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile dependency
> to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
>
> WDYT?
>
> --Manfred
>
>
> * Myfaces Level Project ;-)
> ** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those artifacts
> or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
>
>
>
> On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > True!
> >
> > ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
> > And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
> >
> >
> > -M
> >
> > On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
> > > It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
> commons.apache.org.
> > > If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
> > > myfaces project.
> > >
> > > And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
> > > apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
> > > users.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Volker
> > >
> > > 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> > > > Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion. But I
> agree
> > > > with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like the
> > > > apache commons project
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > > > > your fault of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > > > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > > > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > > > >
> > > > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
> discussions
> > > > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > > > > alternatives? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > > > >
> > > > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Manfred
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Mario
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > > > German
> > > > >
> > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > 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: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Well, I think there's probably enough difference between the two goals
that we do need to separate projects, even though it contributes to
the "Yet Another MyFaces Subproject" quagmire. At least it's a step
in the right direction since we're looking at merging common code
rather than futher separation.
Let's leave the components -> api dependency out until such time that
it's explicitly needed.
On 10/31/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new project
> and what not:
> Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient base
> classes?
>
> I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
>
> Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
> which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
>
> For the artifact names I propose:
> "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
>
> The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile dependency
> to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
>
> WDYT?
>
> --Manfred
>
>
> * Myfaces Level Project ;-)
> ** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those artifacts
> or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
>
>
>
>
> On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > True!
> >
> > ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
> > And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
> >
> >
> > -M
> >
> > On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
> > > It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
> commons.apache.org.
> > > If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
> > > myfaces project.
> > >
> > > And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
> > > apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
> > > users.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Volker
> > >
> > > 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> > > > Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion. But I
> agree
> > > > with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like the
> > > > apache commons project
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > > > > your fault of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > > > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > > > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > > > >
> > > > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
> discussions
> > > > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > > > > alternatives? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > > > >
> > > > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Manfred
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Mario
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > > > German
> > > > >
> > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > 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
Need summary of intent and contend to each MyFaces JSF Commons subproject
was (Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project)
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@mikon.com>.
Please summarize the intent and proposed contents of each subproject on
a wiki page. A common refactoring page already exists [1]. The
resulting pages should be moved in each project's site documentation
Paul Spencer
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/MyFaces_Commons_Refactoring
Simon Lessard wrote:
> I can live with that as well, the name speaks for itself, but it's soooo
> loooooong.
>
> ~ Simon
>
> On 10/31/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
>> I can live with that
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 10/31/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new
>>> project and what not:
>>> Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient
>>> base classes?
>>>
>>> I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
>>>
>>> Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
>>> which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
>>> "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
>>>
>>> For the artifact names I propose:
>>> "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
>>>
>>> The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile
>>> dependency to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> --Manfred
>>>
>>>
>>> * Myfaces Level Project ;-)
>>> ** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those
>>> artifacts or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> True!
>>>>
>>>> ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
>>>> And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -M
>>>>
>>>> On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
>>>>> It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
>>>> commons.apache.org.
>>>>> If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
>>>>> myfaces project.
>>>>>
>>>>> And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
>>>>> apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
>>>>> users.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Volker
>>>>>
>>>>> 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
>>>>>> Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion.
>>>> But I agree
>>>>>> with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like
>>>> the
>>>>>> apache commons project
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list -
>>>> not
>>>>>>> your fault of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to
>>>> Native
>>>>>>> Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those
>>>> names
>>>>>>> could be offensive to Native Americans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
>>>>>>> discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
>>>> discussions
>>>>>>> in the Geronimo community.
>>>>>>> BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of
>>>> suggest
>>>>>>> alternatives? ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
>>>>>>> +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just wanted to sensitize.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Manfred
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>> How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons
>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> Mario
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>>>>>>>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
>>>>>>> Development and Courses in English and
>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>>>>>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>
>>>> further stuff:
>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>
>
Need summary of intent and contend to each MyFaces JSF Commons subproject
was (Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project)
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Please summarize the intent and proposed contents of each subproject on
a wiki page. A common refactoring page already exists [1]. The
resulting pages should be moved in each project's site documentation
Paul Spencer
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/MyFaces_Commons_Refactoring
Simon Lessard wrote:
> I can live with that as well, the name speaks for itself, but it's soooo
> loooooong.
>
> ~ Simon
>
> On 10/31/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
>> I can live with that
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 10/31/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new
>>> project and what not:
>>> Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient
>>> base classes?
>>>
>>> I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
>>>
>>> Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
>>> which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
>>> "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
>>>
>>> For the artifact names I propose:
>>> "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
>>>
>>> The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile
>>> dependency to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> --Manfred
>>>
>>>
>>> * Myfaces Level Project ;-)
>>> ** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those
>>> artifacts or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> True!
>>>>
>>>> ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
>>>> And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -M
>>>>
>>>> On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
>>>>> It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
>>>> commons.apache.org.
>>>>> If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
>>>>> myfaces project.
>>>>>
>>>>> And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
>>>>> apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
>>>>> users.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Volker
>>>>>
>>>>> 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
>>>>>> Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion.
>>>> But I agree
>>>>>> with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like
>>>> the
>>>>>> apache commons project
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list -
>>>> not
>>>>>>> your fault of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to
>>>> Native
>>>>>>> Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those
>>>> names
>>>>>>> could be offensive to Native Americans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
>>>>>>> discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
>>>> discussions
>>>>>>> in the Geronimo community.
>>>>>>> BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of
>>>> suggest
>>>>>>> alternatives? ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
>>>>>>> +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just wanted to sensitize.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Manfred
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>> How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons
>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> Mario
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>>>>>>>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
>>>>>>> Development and Courses in English and
>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>>>>>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>
>>>> further stuff:
>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>
>
Name for "MyFaces Common Project" was Re: [result][vote] start up
the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
I like Manfred Geiler idea around MyFaces JSF Commons.
Paul Spencer
Simon Lessard wrote:
> I can live with that as well, the name speaks for itself, but it's soooo
> loooooong.
>
> ~ Simon
>
> On 10/31/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
>> I can live with that
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 10/31/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new
>>> project and what not:
>>> Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient
>>> base classes?
>>>
>>> I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
>>>
>>> Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
>>> which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
>>> "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
>>>
>>> For the artifact names I propose:
>>> "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
>>>
>>> The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile
>>> dependency to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> --Manfred
>>>
>>>
>>> * Myfaces Level Project ;-)
>>> ** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those
>>> artifacts or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> True!
>>>>
>>>> ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
>>>> And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -M
>>>>
>>>> On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
>>>>> It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
>>>> commons.apache.org.
>>>>> If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
>>>>> myfaces project.
>>>>>
>>>>> And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
>>>>> apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
>>>>> users.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Volker
>>>>>
>>>>> 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
>>>>>> Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion.
>>>> But I agree
>>>>>> with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like
>>>> the
>>>>>> apache commons project
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list -
>>>> not
>>>>>>> your fault of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to
>>>> Native
>>>>>>> Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those
>>>> names
>>>>>>> could be offensive to Native Americans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
>>>>>>> discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
>>>> discussions
>>>>>>> in the Geronimo community.
>>>>>>> BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of
>>>> suggest
>>>>>>> alternatives? ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
>>>>>>> +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just wanted to sensitize.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Manfred
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>> How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons
>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> Mario
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>>>>>>>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
>>>>>>> Development and Courses in English and
>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>>>>>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>
>>>> further stuff:
>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
I can live with that as well, the name speaks for itself, but it's soooo
loooooong.
~ Simon
On 10/31/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
>
> I can live with that
>
> Ron
>
> On 10/31/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new
> > project and what not:
> > Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient
> > base classes?
> >
> > I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
> >
> > Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
> > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
> >
> > For the artifact names I propose:
> > "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
> >
> > The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile
> > dependency to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> > * Myfaces Level Project ;-)
> > ** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those
> > artifacts or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > True!
> > >
> > > ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
> > > And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
> > >
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> > > On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
> > > > It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
> > > commons.apache.org.
> > > > If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
> > > > myfaces project.
> > > >
> > > > And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
> > > > apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
> > > > users.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Volker
> > > >
> > > > 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> > > > > Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion.
> > > But I agree
> > > > > with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like
> > > the
> > > > > apache commons project
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list -
> > > not
> > > > > > your fault of course.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to
> > > Native
> > > > > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those
> > > names
> > > > > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > > > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
> > > discussions
> > > > > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > > > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of
> > > suggest
> > > > > > alternatives? ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > > > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Manfred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons
> > > or
> > > > > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > Mario
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > > > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > > > > German
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> I reject your reality and substitute my own
> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>.
I can live with that
Ron
On 10/31/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new
> project and what not:
> Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient
> base classes?
>
> I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
>
> Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
> which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
>
> For the artifact names I propose:
> "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
>
> The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile dependency
> to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
>
> WDYT?
>
> --Manfred
>
>
> * Myfaces Level Project ;-)
> ** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those
> artifacts or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
>
>
>
> On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > True!
> >
> > ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
> > And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
> >
> >
> > -M
> >
> > On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
> > > It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
> > commons.apache.org.
> > > If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
> > > myfaces project.
> > >
> > > And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
> > > apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
> > > users.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Volker
> > >
> > > 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> > > > Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion. But
> > I agree
> > > > with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like
> > the
> > > > apache commons project
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list -
> > not
> > > > > your fault of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to
> > Native
> > > > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those
> > names
> > > > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > > > >
> > > > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
> > discussions
> > > > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of
> > suggest
> > > > > alternatives? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > > > >
> > > > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Manfred
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons
> > or
> > > > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Mario
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > > > German
> > > > >
> > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > 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
>
--
I reject your reality and substitute my own
--- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de>.
Hi,
see inline
2007/10/31, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> A taglib and a faces-config in the META-INF are loaded/registered
> automatically.
loading/register converters, validators, components, ... has no
inluence to the application as long they are not used. Other things
like ViewHandler, ... should not included in the faces-config as mario
wrote.
> And as I already mentioned, it should be possible to use the commons utils
> from the core impl. Automatically loading extensions(!) is not what we want
> when using the myfaces core implementation.
We have already shared for this. When introducing the shared code
there was a discussion about/against putting this into a own jar with
dependency in impl. The result was against, because is should be
possible to replace the two RI jars by just two myfaces jars.
I don't like the repackaging of shared into impl and tomahawk, but i
don't think this commons-utils should be a renamed shared?
> There is some stuff in shared that makes sense to be moved to commons utils.
> So this is not only theoretical.
>
> And don't forget about all those (renderkit-independent!) converters and
> validators. People might argue for putting them into a jsfcommons components
> artifact. What about the Joda converter that Matthias suggested? What is the
> reason it should go into Trinidad? It is not renderkit-specific or somehow
> related to Trinidad. So, a perfect candidate for jsfcommons-components,
> right?
Converters and Validators should go into the commons, as long there is
nothing of the faces-config which makes influence to a running app
just py putting this jar into classpath.
> (There would even be place for a separate jsfcommons-converters artifacts,
> IMHO)
>
> BTW, I do not understand why some of you are so scared by multiple
> jsfcommons artifacts.
> The Apache Commons Proper consists of 35 different "Components" and nobody
> cares. Quite the contrary, everybody is glad there is not only one bloated
> commons.jar when he/she needs just commons-logging or some of the DbUtils,
> right?
I'm not scared about multiple jsf-commons artifacts, i'ts perfectly ok
for me to have a jsfcommons-validators, jsfcommons-converters,
jsfcommons-components (if someone could describe what is going in
here), and so on.
I didn't know before that jsfcommons-utils was proposed as
jsf-developer utils and i don't know why we need this as replacement
for shared.
Imho the myfaces-jsf-commons should contain classes and tools for
application developers.
I have no problem in making shared a own artifact, but i don't like
the name commons-util for that.
I also don't like having validators, converters and maybe other non
components in a *-components artifact.
Regards,
Volker
>
> --Manfred
>
>
>
> On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de> wrote:
> > What is the problem having a taglib in the jar?
> >
> > 2007/10/31, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/31/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts**
> called
> > > > > > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons
> Components"
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest that I prepare an initial setup, and check it in, so that
> > > > > there is some concrete stuff we can talk about.
> > > > > Ok?
> > > > I still don't get why we should increase the number of modules here.
> > > > Two artifacts means two jars, no?
> > > Yes, sure.
> > >
> > >
> > > > And then, what is a Component? I think we agreed that we just want to
> > > > add render-less components, no? Else it has to go into tomahawk. The
> > > > Commons should not be just a "component-library without (the dreaded)
> > > > shared".
> > > >
> > > > Is a UrlNavigationHandler a Component then or a util? It has no
> > > > component yet, but what if it has one in the future?
> > > > I know, we then can simply just add this component to the Components,
> > > > but why should we split the stuff?
> > > >
> > > > In this case I'd have a
> > > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler
> > > > package where everything lives in.
> > > >
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler (the
> api)
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.impl
> > > >
> org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.component
> > > > etc
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Also renderkit independent "components" need a taglib in the META-INF
> dir.
> > > This is the main difference between a "component" and a goodie class a
> user
> > > can decide to use or not.
> > >
> > > --Manfred
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
yes, fine!
please consider the following structure:
myfaces-jsfcommons
|---- myfaces-jsfcommons-api
|---- myfaces-jsfcommons-impl
|---- myfaces-jsfcommons-sandbox
(we must avoid the name "myfaces-commons" for there was once a project
with that name - see maven repo!)
api = the classes and interfaces, that users will directly use (ie.
import) in their code (= compile scope dependency)
impl = internal implementation classes, users will need during runtime
only (= runtime scope dependency)
furthermore:
- api classes and interfaces must not change between two bugfix
releases (eg. from 1.0.0 to 1.0.1)
- api classes and interfaces might vary (be extended) between two
minor releases (eg. from 1.0.3 to 1.1.0) - BUT only backwards
compatible!
- api classes and interfaces might be totally different between two
major releases (eg. from 1.5.3 to 2.0.0) - BUT need not ;-)
- impl classes (and interfaces) can be changed, added, removed,
refactored whenever needed
This is no unnecessary effort IMHO. jsfcommons can only be successful
and widely accepted if users can confide in a stable API that is not
subject to change on every single release. In a community driven
project this is only possible with some rules. And systematically
separating API from Impl classes in different JARs make these rules
very simple and intuitive.
--Manfred
On Nov 28, 2007 10:41 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is that case, that Bernd I and meet next weekend.
> If you guys don't mind, we start the commons project, as discussed here.
>
> Like maven-stuff etc.
>
> -Matthias
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2007 7:27 PM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > > BTW, I do not understand why some of you are so scared by multiple
> > > jsfcommons artifacts.
> > I see it being much work to maintain ... but anyway, since you are the
> > one who is going to do the initial maven work :-) I do no longer argue
> > against.
> > So, can we start now ;-) ?
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Mario
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi,
it is that case, that Bernd I and meet next weekend.
If you guys don't mind, we start the commons project, as discussed here.
Like maven-stuff etc.
-Matthias
On Nov 13, 2007 7:27 PM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
> > BTW, I do not understand why some of you are so scared by multiple
> > jsfcommons artifacts.
> I see it being much work to maintain ... but anyway, since you are the
> one who is going to do the initial maven work :-) I do no longer argue
> against.
> So, can we start now ;-) ?
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I hope I can spend some time at the end of the week.
I will setup the initial maven dirs and stuff. I will also add the
sandbox we spoke about.
So, hopefully, next week we will have some space that wants to get
filled with cool Java lines...
--Manfred
On Nov 13, 2007 7:27 PM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
> > BTW, I do not understand why some of you are so scared by multiple
> > jsfcommons artifacts.
> I see it being much work to maintain ... but anyway, since you are the
> one who is going to do the initial maven work :-) I do no longer argue
> against.
> So, can we start now ;-) ?
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> BTW, I do not understand why some of you are so scared by multiple
> jsfcommons artifacts.
I see it being much work to maintain ... but anyway, since you are the
one who is going to do the initial maven work :-) I do no longer argue
against.
So, can we start now ;-) ?
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
A taglib and a faces-config in the META-INF are loaded/registered
automatically.
And as I already mentioned, it should be possible to use the commons utils
from the core impl. Automatically loading extensions(!) is not what we want
when using the myfaces core implementation.
There is some stuff in shared that makes sense to be moved to commons utils.
So this is not only theoretical.
And don't forget about all those (renderkit-independent!) converters and
validators. People might argue for putting them into a jsfcommons components
artifact. What about the Joda converter that Matthias suggested? What is the
reason it should go into Trinidad? It is not renderkit-specific or somehow
related to Trinidad. So, a perfect candidate for jsfcommons-components,
right?
(There would even be place for a separate jsfcommons-converters artifacts,
IMHO)
BTW, I do not understand why some of you are so scared by multiple
jsfcommons artifacts.
The Apache Commons Proper consists of 35 different "Components" and nobody
cares. Quite the contrary, everybody is glad there is not only one bloated
commons.jar when he/she needs just commons-logging or some of the DbUtils,
right?
--Manfred
On 10/31/07, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
>
> What is the problem having a taglib in the jar?
>
> 2007/10/31, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> > On 10/31/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts**
> called
> > > > > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons
> Components"
> > > >
> > > > I suggest that I prepare an initial setup, and check it in, so that
> > > > there is some concrete stuff we can talk about.
> > > > Ok?
> > > I still don't get why we should increase the number of modules here.
> > > Two artifacts means two jars, no?
> > Yes, sure.
> >
> >
> > > And then, what is a Component? I think we agreed that we just want to
> > > add render-less components, no? Else it has to go into tomahawk. The
> > > Commons should not be just a "component-library without (the dreaded)
> > > shared".
> > >
> > > Is a UrlNavigationHandler a Component then or a util? It has no
> > > component yet, but what if it has one in the future?
> > > I know, we then can simply just add this component to the Components,
> > > but why should we split the stuff?
> > >
> > > In this case I'd have a
> > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler
> > > package where everything lives in.
> > >
> > > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler (the api)
> > > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.impl
> > > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.component
> > > etc
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Also renderkit independent "components" need a taglib in the META-INF
> dir.
> > This is the main difference between a "component" and a goodie class a
> user
> > can decide to use or not.
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de>.
What is the problem having a taglib in the jar?
2007/10/31, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On 10/31/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > >
> > > > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> > > > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
> > >
> > > I suggest that I prepare an initial setup, and check it in, so that
> > > there is some concrete stuff we can talk about.
> > > Ok?
> > I still don't get why we should increase the number of modules here.
> > Two artifacts means two jars, no?
> Yes, sure.
>
>
> > And then, what is a Component? I think we agreed that we just want to
> > add render-less components, no? Else it has to go into tomahawk. The
> > Commons should not be just a "component-library without (the dreaded)
> > shared".
> >
> > Is a UrlNavigationHandler a Component then or a util? It has no
> > component yet, but what if it has one in the future?
> > I know, we then can simply just add this component to the Components,
> > but why should we split the stuff?
> >
> > In this case I'd have a
> org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler
> > package where everything lives in.
> >
> > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler (the api)
> > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.impl
> > org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.component
> > etc
> >
> >
>
>
> Also renderkit independent "components" need a taglib in the META-INF dir.
> This is the main difference between a "component" and a goodie class a user
> can decide to use or not.
>
> --Manfred
>
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 10/31/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
>
> Hi!
> >
> > > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> > > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
> >
> > I suggest that I prepare an initial setup, and check it in, so that
> > there is some concrete stuff we can talk about.
> > Ok?
> I still don't get why we should increase the number of modules here.
> Two artifacts means two jars, no?
Yes, sure.
And then, what is a Component? I think we agreed that we just want to
> add render-less components, no? Else it has to go into tomahawk. The
> Commons should not be just a "component-library without (the dreaded)
> shared".
>
> Is a UrlNavigationHandler a Component then or a util? It has no
> component yet, but what if it has one in the future?
> I know, we then can simply just add this component to the Components,
> but why should we split the stuff?
>
> In this case I'd have a org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler
> package where everything lives in.
>
> org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler (the api)
> org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.impl
> org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.component
> etc
>
>
Also renderkit independent "components" need a taglib in the META-INF dir.
This is the main difference between a "component" and a goodie class a user
can decide to use or not.
--Manfred
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
>
> > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
>
> I suggest that I prepare an initial setup, and check it in, so that
> there is some concrete stuff we can talk about.
> Ok?
I still don't get why we should increase the number of modules here.
Two artifacts means two jars, no?
And then, what is a Component? I think we agreed that we just want to
add render-less components, no? Else it has to go into tomahawk. The
Commons should not be just a "component-library without (the dreaded)
shared".
Is a UrlNavigationHandler a Component then or a util? It has no
component yet, but what if it has one in the future?
I know, we then can simply just add this component to the Components,
but why should we split the stuff?
In this case I'd have a org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler
package where everything lives in.
org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler (the api)
org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.impl
org.apache.myfaces.commons.urlNavigationHandler.component
etc
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 10/31/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
> >
> > Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
> > which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> > "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
> >
> > For the artifact names I propose:
> > "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
> I think this makes stuff again too complicated to be maintained in the
> future.
> You have two additional projects/modules, with maybe separate release
> cycles - and even if not, you have to release them both at the same time.
> Documentation and site is splitted, pom work is required to do twice, etc
>
>
We do not necessarily need separate release cycles. At least at the
beginning.
They would have a common parent pom of course.
So, once set up, there is not really additional effort during development or
releasing.
I suggest that I prepare an initial setup, and check it in, so that there is
some concrete stuff we can talk about.
Ok?
--Manfred
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
>
> Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
> which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
> "MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
>
> For the artifact names I propose:
> "myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
I think this makes stuff again too complicated to be maintained in the
future.
You have two additional projects/modules, with maybe separate release
cycles - and even if not, you have to release them both at the same time.
Documentation and site is splitted, pom work is required to do twice, etc
My preference is to stick with just one MyFaces JSF Commons project -
<artifactId>myfaces-jsfcommons</artifactId>
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
Since there where some discussions about what should be in this new project
and what not:
Renderkit independent components yes/no? Only static utils, convenient base
classes?
I have a suggestion that would solve this (and the naming as well):
Let's start a new MLP* called "MyFaces JSF Commons"
which is itself an "umbrella" project for two artifacts** called
"MyFaces JSF Commons Utils" and "MyFaces JSF Commons Components"
For the artifact names I propose:
"myfaces-jsfcommons-utils" and "myfaces-jsfcommons-components"
The myfaces-jsfcommons-components artifact would have a compile dependency
to myfaces-jsfcommons-utils.
WDYT?
--Manfred
* Myfaces Level Project ;-)
** We should not use the Apache Commons terminology and call those artifacts
or sub projects "Components" for obvious reasons ;-)
On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>
> True!
>
> ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
> And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
>
>
> -M
>
> On 10/31/07, Volker Weber < v.weber@inexso.de > wrote:
> > It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
> commons.apache.org.
> > If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
> > myfaces project.
> >
> > And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
> > apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
> > users.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Volker
> >
> > 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> > > Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion. But I
> agree
> > > with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like the
> > > apache commons project
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > > >
> > > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > > > your fault of course.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > > >
> > > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
> discussions
> > > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > > > alternatives? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > > >
> > > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > > >
> > > > --Manfred
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Mario
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > > German
> > > >
> > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> 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: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>.
Grins
I give up :) as far as I am concerned call it that (booring!!! :) )
Ron
On 10/31/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> True!
>
> ...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
> And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
>
>
> -M
>
> On 10/31/07, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
> > It is a apache commons like project, just not located in
> commons.apache.org.
> > If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
> > myfaces project.
> >
> > And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
> > apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
> > users.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Volker
> >
> > 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> > > Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion. But I
> agree
> > > with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like the
> > > apache commons project
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > > >
> > > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > > > your fault of course.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > > >
> > > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such
> discussions
> > > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > > > alternatives? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > > >
> > > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > > >
> > > > --Manfred
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Mario
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > > German
> > > >
> > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
--
I reject your reality and substitute my own
--- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
True!
...and also the name "common" is very common... :-)
And therefore not reserved for Apache Commons ...
-M
On 10/31/07, Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de> wrote:
> It is a apache commons like project, just not located in commons.apache.org.
> If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
> myfaces project.
>
> And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
> apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
> users.
>
>
> Regards,
> Volker
>
> 2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> > Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion. But I agree
> > with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like the
> > apache commons project
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > >
> > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > > your fault of course.
> > >
> > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > >
> > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
> > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > > alternatives? ;-)
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > >
> > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > >
> > > --Manfred
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Mario
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.irian.at
> > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > German
> > >
> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Volker Weber <v....@inexso.de>.
It is a apache commons like project, just not located in commons.apache.org.
If it is named myfaces-jsf-commons it should clear enough this is a
myfaces project.
And imho it should contain tools, components, ... for jsf users like
apache-commons-beanutils contains java-collection stuff for java
users.
Regards,
Volker
2007/10/30, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>:
> Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion. But I agree
> with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like the
> apache commons project
>
> Ron
>
> On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> >
> > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > your fault of course.
> >
> > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> >
> > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
> > in the Geronimo community.
> > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > alternatives? ;-)
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> >
> > Just wanted to sensitize.
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> > [1]
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits < ron@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > >
> > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > Development and Courses in English and
> > German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> I reject your reality and substitute my own
> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>.
Grins, I so do not want to start a 'poco sensitive' discussion. But I agree
with several other writers here, that commons sounds too much like the
apache commons project
Ron
On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
>
> Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> your fault of course.
>
> Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> could be offensive to Native Americans.
>
> And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
> in the Geronimo community.
> BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> alternatives? ;-)
>
> Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
>
> Just wanted to sensitize.
>
> --Manfred
>
>
> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
>
>
>
> On 10/30/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > >
> > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Mario
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>
>
> --
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
I reject your reality and substitute my own
--- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com>.
On 10/30/07, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why not Apache Caribbean?
And risk offending the Atlantic sea snail ? I would think not !!
--
Grant Smith
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
:-)
On 10/30/07, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not Apache Caribbean? Since it's most likely going to be composed of
> features taken from Trinidad and Tobago it would fit quite well (probably
> would probably get quite a lot of additional search engine hits :P )
>
>
> ~ Simon
>
>
> On 10/30/07, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unless the code is really bad, is it really derogatory at all? Apache
> > is a native American name, so projects using that theme go well. I'm
> > not aware of the other discussions, but I did come from a school that
> > had to change its name because of non-native Americans complaining
> > about native American rights and know the gist.
> >
> > Why would Native Americans be offended by their own tribe and location
> > names? If anything it keeps people thinking of their people group and
> > their culture which should be viewed as a good thing, I would hope.
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> > >
> > > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > > your fault of course.
> > >
> > > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> > >
> > > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
> > > in the Geronimo community.
> > > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > > alternatives? ;-)
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> > >
> > > Just wanted to sensitize.
> > >
> > > --Manfred
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Mario
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.irian.at
> > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > German
> > >
> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > >
> >
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
Why not Apache Caribbean? Since it's most likely going to be composed of
features taken from Trinidad and Tobago it would fit quite well (probably
would probably get quite a lot of additional search engine hits :P )
~ Simon
On 10/30/07, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Unless the code is really bad, is it really derogatory at all? Apache
> is a native American name, so projects using that theme go well. I'm
> not aware of the other discussions, but I did come from a school that
> had to change its name because of non-native Americans complaining
> about native American rights and know the gist.
>
> Why would Native Americans be offended by their own tribe and location
> names? If anything it keeps people thinking of their people group and
> their culture which should be viewed as a good thing, I would hope.
>
> On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> >
> > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > your fault of course.
> >
> > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> >
> > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
> > in the Geronimo community.
> > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > alternatives? ;-)
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> >
> > Just wanted to sensitize.
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> > [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > >
> > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > Development and Courses in English and
> > German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Yep, KIFS - Keep It Flat and Simple.
For the same reason we should not put the Facelets project under
tomahawk - even though it may have tomahawk in its name. With the
projects names Manfred proposed this is easily possible.
Ciao,
Mario
Scott O'Bryan schrieb:
> Yeah, and I don't know what's going to happen with the RCF project,
> guess it's up to the community to decide, but I don't see why it needs
> to be a subproject of Trinidad so much as a subproject of MyFaces with
> a dependency on Trinidad. :) Most all of it's dependencies are on
> API packages in Trinidad and I imagine that any impl dependencies
> would have to be resolved anyway.
>
> Scott
>
> Mario Ivankovits wrote:
>> Hi!
>>> 2. Following some old discussion, we don't know if extra components
>>> libaries are going to stay as MyFaces subprojects forever. For
>>> instance, when RCF get out of incubation, it might be strange to
>>> have a subsubproject of MyFaces since RCF is a subproject of
>>> Trinidad. If we can get a nice modular infrastructure including only
>>> renderkit independent at first, but then adding some optional module
>>> for PPR, skinning and such, then we could move to a TLP and have
>>> Tomahawk, Tobago, Trinidad and RCF be simple subprojects all
>>> depending only on that new common library. Hopefully, it would also
>>> ensure perfect interoperability between all of them at the same time.
>> I have no plans to ever move TLP with anything I do here in MyFaces
>> land, I feel very comfortable under the MyFaces umbrella and I also
>> do not understand (yet) why we should leave.
>> MyFaces = JSF@Apache - IMHO that should be the direction. Maybe we
>> have to split the ML later on, but that is another story.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Mario
>>
>>
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, and I don't know what's going to happen with the RCF project,
guess it's up to the community to decide, but I don't see why it needs
to be a subproject of Trinidad so much as a subproject of MyFaces with a
dependency on Trinidad. :) Most all of it's dependencies are on API
packages in Trinidad and I imagine that any impl dependencies would have
to be resolved anyway.
Scott
Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> Hi!
>> 2. Following some old discussion, we don't know if extra components
>> libaries are going to stay as MyFaces subprojects forever. For
>> instance, when RCF get out of incubation, it might be strange to have
>> a subsubproject of MyFaces since RCF is a subproject of Trinidad. If
>> we can get a nice modular infrastructure including only renderkit
>> independent at first, but then adding some optional module for PPR,
>> skinning and such, then we could move to a TLP and have Tomahawk,
>> Tobago, Trinidad and RCF be simple subprojects all depending only on
>> that new common library. Hopefully, it would also ensure perfect
>> interoperability between all of them at the same time.
> I have no plans to ever move TLP with anything I do here in MyFaces
> land, I feel very comfortable under the MyFaces umbrella and I also do
> not understand (yet) why we should leave.
> MyFaces = JSF@Apache - IMHO that should be the direction. Maybe we
> have to split the ML later on, but that is another story.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> 2. Following some old discussion, we don't know if extra components
> libaries are going to stay as MyFaces subprojects forever. For
> instance, when RCF get out of incubation, it might be strange to have
> a subsubproject of MyFaces since RCF is a subproject of Trinidad. If
> we can get a nice modular infrastructure including only renderkit
> independent at first, but then adding some optional module for PPR,
> skinning and such, then we could move to a TLP and have Tomahawk,
> Tobago, Trinidad and RCF be simple subprojects all depending only on
> that new common library. Hopefully, it would also ensure perfect
> interoperability between all of them at the same time.
I have no plans to ever move TLP with anything I do here in MyFaces
land, I feel very comfortable under the MyFaces umbrella and I also do
not understand (yet) why we should leave.
MyFaces = JSF@Apache - IMHO that should be the direction. Maybe we have
to split the ML later on, but that is another story.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
Hmm I don't know. I think we cannot really use MyFaces Commons for 2
reasons:
1. When I hear Commons I can only think of Jakarta;
2. Following some old discussion, we don't know if extra components libaries
are going to stay as MyFaces subprojects forever. For instance, when RCF get
out of incubation, it might be strange to have a subsubproject of MyFaces
since RCF is a subproject of Trinidad. If we can get a nice modular
infrastructure including only renderkit independent at first, but then
adding some optional module for PPR, skinning and such, then we could move
to a TLP and have Tomahawk, Tobago, Trinidad and RCF be simple subprojects
all depending only on that new common library. Hopefully, it would also
ensure perfect interoperability between all of them at the same time.
~ Simon
On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I am not sure why we can't call it simply "MyFaces Commons"? I think the
> name is pretty fine.
>
> But to put something additional into the fire: MyFaces Essentials, or,
> to move on with islands, MyFaces Papeete
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
> > Pretty hard to discuss for non-Americans,
> > I can't speak for Manfred, but I accepted the discussions, said OK and
> > moved forward.
> >
> > -M
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Unless the code is really bad, is it really derogatory at all? Apache
> >> is a native American name, so projects using that theme go well. I'm
> >> not aware of the other discussions, but I did come from a school that
> >> had to change its name because of non-native Americans complaining
> >> about native American rights and know the gist.
> >>
> >> Why would Native Americans be offended by their own tribe and location
> >> names? If anything it keeps people thinking of their people group and
> >> their culture which should be viewed as a good thing, I would hope.
> >>
> >> On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> >>>
> >>> Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> >>> your fault of course.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> >>> Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> >>> could be offensive to Native Americans.
> >>>
> >>> And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> >>> discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
> >>> in the Geronimo community.
> >>> BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> >>> alternatives? ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> >>> +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> >>>
> >>> Just wanted to sensitize.
> >>>
> >>> --Manfred
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/30/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> >>>>>> something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Mario
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
> >>>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://www.irian.at
> >>> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> >>> Development and Courses in English and
> >>> German
> >>>
> >>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Mario Ivankovits
> Software Engineering
>
> OPS EDV VertriebsgesmbH
> A-1120 Wien, Michael-Bernhard-Gasse 10
>
> Firmenbuch Nr.: FN51233v, Handelsgericht Wien
> Tel.: +43-1-8938810; Fax: +43-1-8938810/3700
> http://www.ops.co.at
>
> E-Mail: mario@ops.co.at
> Skype: mario_ivankovits
>
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
It was already set, isn't it ???
On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am not sure why we can't call it simply "MyFaces Commons"? I think the
> name is pretty fine.
>
> But to put something additional into the fire: MyFaces Essentials, or,
> to move on with islands, MyFaces Papeete
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
> > Pretty hard to discuss for non-Americans,
> > I can't speak for Manfred, but I accepted the discussions, said OK and
> > moved forward.
> >
> > -M
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Unless the code is really bad, is it really derogatory at all? Apache
> >> is a native American name, so projects using that theme go well. I'm
> >> not aware of the other discussions, but I did come from a school that
> >> had to change its name because of non-native Americans complaining
> >> about native American rights and know the gist.
> >>
> >> Why would Native Americans be offended by their own tribe and location
> >> names? If anything it keeps people thinking of their people group and
> >> their culture which should be viewed as a good thing, I would hope.
> >>
> >> On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> >>>
> >>> Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> >>> your fault of course.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> >>> Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> >>> could be offensive to Native Americans.
> >>>
> >>> And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> >>> discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
> >>> in the Geronimo community.
> >>> BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> >>> alternatives? ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> >>> +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> >>>
> >>> Just wanted to sensitize.
> >>>
> >>> --Manfred
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/30/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> >>>>>> something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Mario
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
> >>>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://www.irian.at
> >>> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> >>> Development and Courses in English and
> >>> German
> >>>
> >>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Mario Ivankovits
> Software Engineering
>
> OPS EDV VertriebsgesmbH
> A-1120 Wien, Michael-Bernhard-Gasse 10
>
> Firmenbuch Nr.: FN51233v, Handelsgericht Wien
> Tel.: +43-1-8938810; Fax: +43-1-8938810/3700
> http://www.ops.co.at
>
> E-Mail: mario@ops.co.at
> Skype: mario_ivankovits
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
I am not sure why we can't call it simply "MyFaces Commons"? I think the
name is pretty fine.
But to put something additional into the fire: MyFaces Essentials, or,
to move on with islands, MyFaces Papeete
Ciao,
Mario
> Pretty hard to discuss for non-Americans,
> I can't speak for Manfred, but I accepted the discussions, said OK and
> moved forward.
>
> -M
>
> On 10/30/07, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless the code is really bad, is it really derogatory at all? Apache
>> is a native American name, so projects using that theme go well. I'm
>> not aware of the other discussions, but I did come from a school that
>> had to change its name because of non-native Americans complaining
>> about native American rights and know the gist.
>>
>> Why would Native Americans be offended by their own tribe and location
>> names? If anything it keeps people thinking of their people group and
>> their culture which should be viewed as a good thing, I would hope.
>>
>> On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
>>>
>>> Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
>>> your fault of course.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
>>> Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
>>> could be offensive to Native Americans.
>>>
>>> And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
>>> discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
>>> in the Geronimo community.
>>> BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
>>> alternatives? ;-)
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
>>> +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
>>>
>>> Just wanted to sensitize.
>>>
>>> --Manfred
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/30/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>>> How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
>>>>>> something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Mario
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> I reject your reality and substitute my own
>>>> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.irian.at
>>> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
>>> Development and Courses in English and
>>> German
>>>
>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
mit freundlichen Grüßen
Mario Ivankovits
Software Engineering
OPS EDV VertriebsgesmbH
A-1120 Wien, Michael-Bernhard-Gasse 10
Firmenbuch Nr.: FN51233v, Handelsgericht Wien
Tel.: +43-1-8938810; Fax: +43-1-8938810/3700
http://www.ops.co.at
E-Mail: mario@ops.co.at
Skype: mario_ivankovits
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Pretty hard to discuss for non-Americans,
I can't speak for Manfred, but I accepted the discussions, said OK and
moved forward.
-M
On 10/30/07, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless the code is really bad, is it really derogatory at all? Apache
> is a native American name, so projects using that theme go well. I'm
> not aware of the other discussions, but I did come from a school that
> had to change its name because of non-native Americans complaining
> about native American rights and know the gist.
>
> Why would Native Americans be offended by their own tribe and location
> names? If anything it keeps people thinking of their people group and
> their culture which should be viewed as a good thing, I would hope.
>
> On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
> >
> > Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> > your fault of course.
> >
> > Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> > Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> > could be offensive to Native Americans.
> >
> > And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> > discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
> > in the Geronimo community.
> > BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> > alternatives? ;-)
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> > +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
> >
> > Just wanted to sensitize.
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> > [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > > >
> > > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > Development and Courses in English and
> > German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
Unless the code is really bad, is it really derogatory at all? Apache
is a native American name, so projects using that theme go well. I'm
not aware of the other discussions, but I did come from a school that
had to change its name because of non-native Americans complaining
about native American rights and know the gist.
Why would Native Americans be offended by their own tribe and location
names? If anything it keeps people thinking of their people group and
their culture which should be viewed as a good thing, I would hope.
On 10/30/07, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
>
> Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
> your fault of course.
>
> Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
> Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
> could be offensive to Native Americans.
>
> And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
> discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
> in the Geronimo community.
> BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
> alternatives? ;-)
>
> Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
> +/-0 for names related to Native Americans
>
> Just wanted to sensitize.
>
> --Manfred
>
>
> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
>
>
>
> On 10/30/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> > How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > > >
> > > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Mario
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I reject your reality and substitute my own
> > --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
>
>
> --
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
Oh no! Not that discussion again... :-(
Ron, you might not be aware of former discussions on this list - not
your fault of course.
Yes, there are many ASF projects which have names related to Native
Americans, BUT there are also many people concerned that those names
could be offensive to Native Americans.
And MyFaces is - of course - not the only ASF project where such
discussions took place: see [1] to get an idea about such discussions
in the Geronimo community.
BTW, did you know they once had "Tomahawk" in their list of suggest
alternatives? ;-)
Don't get me wrong, my personal opinion is
+/-0 for names related to Native Americans
Just wanted to sensitize.
--Manfred
[1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSBOX/why-apache-geronimo.html
On 10/30/07, Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org> wrote:
> How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
>
>
> On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> > >
> > Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
> >
> > ---
> > Mario
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> I reject your reality and substitute my own
> --- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>.
How about Tsalagi? that is the name of the cherokee language
On 10/30/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
>
> Hi!
> > How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> > something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
> >
> Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
>
> ---
> Mario
>
>
--
I reject your reality and substitute my own
--- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
> something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
>
Could you give an "ASF style" name for example?
---
Mario
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
How about a new "ASF style" name instead of basic, commons or
something else that could be more easily misconstrued?
-A
On 10/29/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think there's any hard rule that all projects have to be
> prefixed with MyFaces.
> But then, I also don't have any problem with it being associated with
> Tomahawk or MyFaces (in the name).
>
> On 10/29/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > > I agree that MyFaces Basics is too MyFaces-Core-esque. Tomahawk
> > > Basics or JSF Basics would be better choices.
> > >
> > Hmmm ... I think the "MyFaces JSF Basics" is the only option then. As
> > far as I know the token "MyFaces" needs to be in there as it is a
> > project of the "MyFaces" project.
> >
> > Personally I think the token "tomahawk" suggest that the Basic module is
> > meant as something related to tomahawk only then.
> >
> > Also we should clearly state in the future that the term MyFaces does
> > not not necessarily mean a module works only with the MyFaces JSF
> > implementation nor with tomahawk only. But I think this is something we
> > already do as good as we can, e.g. with Apache MyFaces Trinidad, Apache
> > MyFaces Orchestra.
> > Btw, Tobago is an exception here, they call their project just Tobago
> > instead of "Apache MyFaces Tobago" as it should be ... I think.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Mario
> >
> >
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
I don't think there's any hard rule that all projects have to be
prefixed with MyFaces.
But then, I also don't have any problem with it being associated with
Tomahawk or MyFaces (in the name).
On 10/29/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
> > I agree that MyFaces Basics is too MyFaces-Core-esque. Tomahawk
> > Basics or JSF Basics would be better choices.
> >
> Hmmm ... I think the "MyFaces JSF Basics" is the only option then. As
> far as I know the token "MyFaces" needs to be in there as it is a
> project of the "MyFaces" project.
>
> Personally I think the token "tomahawk" suggest that the Basic module is
> meant as something related to tomahawk only then.
>
> Also we should clearly state in the future that the term MyFaces does
> not not necessarily mean a module works only with the MyFaces JSF
> implementation nor with tomahawk only. But I think this is something we
> already do as good as we can, e.g. with Apache MyFaces Trinidad, Apache
> MyFaces Orchestra.
> Btw, Tobago is an exception here, they call their project just Tobago
> instead of "Apache MyFaces Tobago" as it should be ... I think.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> I agree that MyFaces Basics is too MyFaces-Core-esque. Tomahawk
> Basics or JSF Basics would be better choices.
>
Hmmm ... I think the "MyFaces JSF Basics" is the only option then. As
far as I know the token "MyFaces" needs to be in there as it is a
project of the "MyFaces" project.
Personally I think the token "tomahawk" suggest that the Basic module is
meant as something related to tomahawk only then.
Also we should clearly state in the future that the term MyFaces does
not not necessarily mean a module works only with the MyFaces JSF
implementation nor with tomahawk only. But I think this is something we
already do as good as we can, e.g. with Apache MyFaces Trinidad, Apache
MyFaces Orchestra.
Btw, Tobago is an exception here, they call their project just Tobago
instead of "Apache MyFaces Tobago" as it should be ... I think.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Just a note that all votes are binding, except when we're voting on
something specifically delegated to PMC members, those being releases,
committers, and pmc members.
I agree that MyFaces Basics is too MyFaces-Core-esque. Tomahawk
Basics or JSF Basics would be better choices.
On 10/29/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The result of the vote is:
>
> +1
> Mike Kienenberger
> Martin Marinschek
> Matthias Wessendorf
> Volker Weber
> Gary VanMatre
> Grant Smith
> Cagaty Civici
> Paul Spencer
> Scott O'Bryan
> Ernst Fastl
> alvaro tovar (even if he don't know why ;-) )
> Manfred Geiler
> Bernd Bohmann
> Ron Smits
>
> I've abstaind from splitting "binding" and "non binding" votes as
> everyone can see that this vote passed with amazing attendance.
>
> Seems like there is some maven work waiting now .... :-)
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
[result][vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
The result of the vote is:
+1
Mike Kienenberger
Martin Marinschek
Matthias Wessendorf
Volker Weber
Gary VanMatre
Grant Smith
Cagaty Civici
Paul Spencer
Scott O'Bryan
Ernst Fastl
alvaro tovar (even if he don't know why ;-) )
Manfred Geiler
Bernd Bohmann
Ron Smits
I've abstaind from splitting "binding" and "non binding" votes as
everyone can see that this vote passed with amazing attendance.
Seems like there is some maven work waiting now .... :-)
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
+1
:-)
On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
>
> The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> to a component.
>
> [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
>
>
> I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> from another of our modules)
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by alvaro tovar <al...@gmail.com>.
+1 i don´t understand, but anyway
On 10/25/07, Ernst Fastl <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 sounds great.
>
> On 10/25/07, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 non-binding
> >
> > I also have some suggestions for things to go into this project which
> > would be helpful.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > Paul Spencer wrote:
> > > +1 for the commons project.
> > >
> > > Paul Spencer
> > >
> > > Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> > >> Hi!
> > >>
> > >>> 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2
> and
> > >>> commons_2.0?
> > >> Hmmmm .... I don't think so, at least for the start not. Lets start
> > >> another module once we cross that bridge.
> > >>
> > >>> 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the
> project(s)?
> > >> Some stuff from the shared project which is definitely stable like
> parts
> > >> of org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.renderkit.RendererUtils
> > >> The RequestParameterProvider from tomahawk-sandbox which do not have
> a
> > >> single component but is required in Orchestra.
> > >> (Orchestra currently uses a copy of this framework)
> > >> The RedirectTracker from tomahawk-sandbox.
> > >>
> > >> Thats all whats just popping out of my brain.
> > >>
> > >> Well, and in general what Mike outlined:
> > >>> Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
> > >>> reasonable[1] combination of
> > >>>
> JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
> > >>>
> > >>> then it should be available here.
> > >>
> > >> There is room for this project, exact details about what we take over
> > >> could be discussed then.
> > >>
> > >> Ciao,
> > >> Mario
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Ernst Fastl <er...@gmail.com>.
+1 sounds great.
On 10/25/07, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 non-binding
>
> I also have some suggestions for things to go into this project which
> would be helpful.
>
> Scott
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
> > +1 for the commons project.
> >
> > Paul Spencer
> >
> > Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >>> 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
> >>> commons_2.0?
> >> Hmmmm .... I don't think so, at least for the start not. Lets start
> >> another module once we cross that bridge.
> >>
> >>> 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?
> >> Some stuff from the shared project which is definitely stable like parts
> >> of org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.renderkit.RendererUtils
> >> The RequestParameterProvider from tomahawk-sandbox which do not have a
> >> single component but is required in Orchestra.
> >> (Orchestra currently uses a copy of this framework)
> >> The RedirectTracker from tomahawk-sandbox.
> >>
> >> Thats all whats just popping out of my brain.
> >>
> >> Well, and in general what Mike outlined:
> >>> Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
> >>> reasonable[1] combination of
> >>> JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
> >>>
> >>> then it should be available here.
> >>
> >> There is room for this project, exact details about what we take over
> >> could be discussed then.
> >>
> >> Ciao,
> >> Mario
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 non-binding
I also have some suggestions for things to go into this project which
would be helpful.
Scott
Paul Spencer wrote:
> +1 for the commons project.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Mario Ivankovits wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
>>> commons_2.0?
>> Hmmmm .... I don't think so, at least for the start not. Lets start
>> another module once we cross that bridge.
>>
>>> 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?
>> Some stuff from the shared project which is definitely stable like parts
>> of org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.renderkit.RendererUtils
>> The RequestParameterProvider from tomahawk-sandbox which do not have a
>> single component but is required in Orchestra.
>> (Orchestra currently uses a copy of this framework)
>> The RedirectTracker from tomahawk-sandbox.
>>
>> Thats all whats just popping out of my brain.
>>
>> Well, and in general what Mike outlined:
>>> Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
>>> reasonable[1] combination of
>>> JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
>>>
>>> then it should be available here.
>>
>> There is room for this project, exact details about what we take over
>> could be discussed then.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Mario
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@mindspring.com>.
+1 for the commons project.
Paul Spencer
Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
>> commons_2.0?
> Hmmmm .... I don't think so, at least for the start not. Lets start
> another module once we cross that bridge.
>
>> 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?
> Some stuff from the shared project which is definitely stable like parts
> of org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.renderkit.RendererUtils
> The RequestParameterProvider from tomahawk-sandbox which do not have a
> single component but is required in Orchestra.
> (Orchestra currently uses a copy of this framework)
> The RedirectTracker from tomahawk-sandbox.
>
> Thats all whats just popping out of my brain.
>
> Well, and in general what Mike outlined:
>> Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
>> reasonable[1] combination of
>> JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
>> then it should be available here.
>
> There is room for this project, exact details about what we take over
> could be discussed then.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Ron Smits <ro...@ronsmits.org>.
+1
And I would actually prefer not to have a split in commons1_2 and so on. We
have enough jars as it is.
Ron Smits
On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
> > commons_2.0?
> Hmmmm .... I don't think so, at least for the start not. Lets start
> another module once we cross that bridge.
>
> > 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?
> Some stuff from the shared project which is definitely stable like parts
> of org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.renderkit.RendererUtils
> The RequestParameterProvider from tomahawk-sandbox which do not have a
> single component but is required in Orchestra.
> (Orchestra currently uses a copy of this framework)
> The RedirectTracker from tomahawk-sandbox.
>
> Thats all whats just popping out of my brain.
>
> Well, and in general what Mike outlined:
> > Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
> > reasonable[1] combination of
> >
> JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
> > then it should be available here.
>
> There is room for this project, exact details about what we take over
> could be discussed then.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
I reject your reality and substitute my own
--- Adam Savage, the mythbusters
"common-bridge" and supported JSF versions was (Re: [vote] start
up the MyFaces Commons project)
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
At the moment I am stuck with JSF 1.1. This is due in part to the
version of Java available on some HP-UX servers. Although I would like
to move to JSF 1.2, this will not occur in the near future. If this is
a common situation, then I suggest JSF 1.1 AND JSF 1.2 should be
"current" relative to MyFaces projects. Granted some project will not
support JSF 1.1, but the ones that do should continue to develop in the
JSF 1.1 environment. The use of a "bridge" to simplify development
efforts for those projects that support 1.1 and 1.2 is a good idea.
Paul Spencer
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
>>> commons_2.0?
>> Hmmmm .... I don't think so, at least for the start not. Lets start
>> another module once we cross that bridge.
>
> I think, this is a valid question.
> The current version of JSF is 1.2.
> The old version is 1.1
>
> But for some reasons that is the one, that the most people use.
>
>
> I think, that such a "common-bridge" should at least support "current"
> development and optionally support the "old" one.
>
> The bad news is, that almost nobody here uses JSF 1.2 :-)
> So reasonable to understand that this bridge starts with JSF 1.1
>
> What do others think...
>
>>> 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?
>> Some stuff from the shared project which is definitely stable like parts
>> of org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.renderkit.RendererUtils
>> The RequestParameterProvider from tomahawk-sandbox which do not have a
>> single component but is required in Orchestra.
>> (Orchestra currently uses a copy of this framework)
>> The RedirectTracker from tomahawk-sandbox.
>>
>> Thats all whats just popping out of my brain.
>>
>> Well, and in general what Mike outlined:
>>> Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
>>> reasonable[1] combination of
>>> JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
>>> then it should be available here.
>> There is room for this project, exact details about what we take over
>> could be discussed then.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Mario
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On 10/24/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
> > commons_2.0?
> Hmmmm .... I don't think so, at least for the start not. Lets start
> another module once we cross that bridge.
I think, this is a valid question.
The current version of JSF is 1.2.
The old version is 1.1
But for some reasons that is the one, that the most people use.
I think, that such a "common-bridge" should at least support "current"
development and optionally support the "old" one.
The bad news is, that almost nobody here uses JSF 1.2 :-)
So reasonable to understand that this bridge starts with JSF 1.1
What do others think...
>
> > 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?
> Some stuff from the shared project which is definitely stable like parts
> of org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.renderkit.RendererUtils
> The RequestParameterProvider from tomahawk-sandbox which do not have a
> single component but is required in Orchestra.
> (Orchestra currently uses a copy of this framework)
> The RedirectTracker from tomahawk-sandbox.
>
> Thats all whats just popping out of my brain.
>
> Well, and in general what Mike outlined:
> > Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
> > reasonable[1] combination of
> > JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
> > then it should be available here.
>
> There is room for this project, exact details about what we take over
> could be discussed then.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
> commons_2.0?
Hmmmm .... I don't think so, at least for the start not. Lets start
another module once we cross that bridge.
> 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?
Some stuff from the shared project which is definitely stable like parts
of org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.renderkit.RendererUtils
The RequestParameterProvider from tomahawk-sandbox which do not have a
single component but is required in Orchestra.
(Orchestra currently uses a copy of this framework)
The RedirectTracker from tomahawk-sandbox.
Thats all whats just popping out of my brain.
Well, and in general what Mike outlined:
> Ie, if the validator/component/converter/other can be used with any
> reasonable[1] combination of
> JSF_RI/MyFacesCore/Tomahawk/Tobago/Trinidad/IceFaces/RichFaces/PortletBridge,
> then it should be available here.
There is room for this project, exact details about what we take over
could be discussed then.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [vote] start up the MyFaces Commons project
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Mario,
In general agree with the need for a commons project. Before voting, I
need some more information:
1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
commons_2.0?
2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?
Paul Spencer
Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Lets start up the long awaited MyFaces Commons project.
>
> The aim of this project will be to contain all stuff which do not belong
> to a component.
>
> [ ] +1 yea, lets start
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 no, for those reasons .....
>
>
> I'll do the maven work then (a not very sophisticated one, just copy it
> from another of our modules)
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>