On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Pete Muir <email@example.com>
I don't really like this at all - official is not very community orientated.
On 21 Apr 2009, at 17:05, Dan Allen wrote:
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).
So far, we have four main SVN divisions:
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.
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.
Speaking of which, if we followed the web beans convention, the folder names would be:
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.
I personally think we should require JSF2, we aren't porting all the stuff we added to the JSF2 spec over...
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?).
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.
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.
I wrote a Maven script ;)
I'll likely weave in the antrun plugin to get fancier, but it is simple enough right now that it gets the job done.