Re: MyFaces Commons project questions raised on the vote thread

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

Moving this out of the vote thread.

On 10/24/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
> commons_2.0?

I'd say yes, if it makes sense to do so.


> 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?

Some of the things I'd expect to see in here are most of the Tomahawk
validators and converters, possibly t:saveState (I'd have to look at
it to be sure this will work, but I think it could), and I'd like to
see a t:dataList without the almost-never-used rendering part, ie,
layout = "simple".

I'd love to see s:subForm in here, but I don't think it's possible to
do this in a render-kit independent way.   Maybe someone can prove me
wrong, though.

Re: MyFaces Commons project questions raised on the vote thread

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

Also, just to clarify for those who haven't waded through the past
archives on the subject, this is mostly a structural change rather
than an organizational change.

The goal is to split the Tomahawk jars into renderkit-specific and
non-renderkit-specific jar files so that Tobago, Seam, and other
renderkit-specific projects can take advantage of what's available.

On 10/24/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moving this out of the vote thread.
>
> On 10/24/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > 1) Will their be a JSF version specific version, i.e. commons_1.2 and
> > commons_2.0?
>
> I'd say yes, if it makes sense to do so.
>
>
> > 2) What are some of the module will you be moving into the project(s)?
>
> Some of the things I'd expect to see in here are most of the Tomahawk
> validators and converters, possibly t:saveState (I'd have to look at
> it to be sure this will work, but I think it could), and I'd like to
> see a t:dataList without the almost-never-used rendering part, ie,
> layout = "simple".
>
> I'd love to see s:subForm in here, but I don't think it's possible to
> do this in a render-kit independent way.   Maybe someone can prove me
> wrong, though.
>