AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces

[Bernhard Slominski]

The spec develops over the time so even it's not finsihed we roughly know
what will be in it, it's getting clearer when time moves on.
Maybe for the merger we don't have to set a hard dependency on JSF2, but it
doesn't make sense to me to migrate any features which are not needed
anymore in the near furture like Remoting.

Bernhard

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Kito D. Mann [mailto:kmann@...]
> Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 17:49
> An: dev@...
> Betreff: RE: Merging Shale into MyFaces
>
>
> I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or
> more away....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
> mentoring
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:bernhard.slominski@...]
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM
> > To: 'dev@...'; MyFaces Development
> > Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
> > So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting)
> should not
> > move,
> > but just stay in Shale.
> > Also let's see where templating and component development
> goes before
> > making
> > a decision about Clay.
> > So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it
> comes to JSF 2
> > all
> > Add-Ons move to MyFaces.
> >
> > Bernhard
> >

[kito99]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:bernhard.slominski@...]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:33 PM
> To: 'dev@...'
> Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
>
> The spec develops over the time so even it's not finsihed we roughly
> know
> what will be in it, it's getting clearer when time moves on.
> Maybe for the merger we don't have to set a hard dependency on JSF2,
> but it
> doesn't make sense to me to migrate any features which are not needed
> anymore in the near furture like Remoting.

Seems to me it'd be easy to implement JSF 2.0 in MyFaces if we're already
maintaining a similar code base...

> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Kito D. Mann [mailto:kmann@...]
> > Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 17:49
> > An: dev@...
> > Betreff: RE: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> >
> >
> > I don't think that's a good idea, since JSF 2.0 is a year or
> > more away....
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
> > mentoring
> > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bernhard Slominski [mailto:bernhard.slominski@...]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:41 AM
> > > To: 'dev@...'; MyFaces Development
> > > Subject: AW: Merging Shale into MyFaces
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I guess it makes sense, to make the merger a post JSF 2 project.
> > > So all features, which are included in JSF 2 (e.g Remoting)
> > should not
> > > move,
> > > but just stay in Shale.
> > > Also let's see where templating and component development
> > goes before
> > > making
> > > a decision about Clay.
> > > So Shale is then the JSF 1.X add-on framework, when it
> > comes to JSF 2
> > > all
> > > Add-Ons move to MyFaces.
> > >
> > > Bernhard
> > >