<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Pete Muir <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pmuir@redhat.com">pmuir@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On 21 Apr 2009, at 17:05, Dan Allen wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I'd like to start a new thread to discuss the Seam 3 foundation (since this is no longer about the Seam 2.1 branch).<br>
<br>
So far, we have four main SVN divisions:<br>
<br>
examples<br>
modules<br>
docs<br>
sandbox<br>
<br>
I raised the question whether we should divide up modules into official, sandbox, and thirdparty. Shane said that likely we don't need that fine-grained of a division.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I don't really like this at all - official is not very community orientated.</blockquote><div><br>Okay, that's not really what I meant. I was thinking more along the lines of production ready versus...well, a sandbox. But I think there is a general consensus on a two-way split.<br>
<br>modules<br>modules-sandbox<br><br>Speaking of which, if we followed the web beans convention, the folder names would be:<br><br>seam-modules<br>seam-modules-sandbox<br>seam-examples<br>seam-examples-sandbox<br><br>Should we add the seam- prefix? Or is it fine the way it is. I actually don't care, just pointing out that I noticed the difference.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
The first example (booking) will be using JSF 2.0. I'm going to express this as a dependency per example right now because I'm thinking we still want Seam 3 to work with JSF 1.2 (or should we?).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I personally think we should require JSF2, we aren't porting all the stuff we added to the JSF2 spec over...<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I'll also assume that the app server has JSF 2.0. We might want a build somewhere that can install JSF 2 into JBoss AS just like Web Beans has. Of course, we are waiting on a deployer from my understanding.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
You can do it today, just replace the libraries in deploy/jbossweb.deploy/jsf-libs - writing an ant script to do this is a good idea.<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>I wrote a Maven script ;)<br><br>modules/jsf-updater-tool<br>
<br>I'll likely weave in the antrun plugin to get fancier, but it is simple enough right now that it gets the job done.<br><br></div></div>-Dan<br><br>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>
<br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br><a href="http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan">http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan</a><br>
<br>NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily<br>basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away<br>from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,<br>
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was<br>caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if<br>you feel that it did not reach my attention.<br>