On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com> wrote:

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:

examples
modules
docs
sandbox

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.

I don't really like this at all - official is not very community orientated.

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.

modules
modules-sandbox

Speaking of which, if we followed the web beans convention, the folder names would be:

seam-modules
seam-modules-sandbox
seam-examples
seam-examples-sandbox

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.

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?).

I personally think we should require JSF2, we aren't porting all the stuff we added to the JSF2 spec over...

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.

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 wrote a Maven script ;)

modules/jsf-updater-tool

I'll likely weave in the antrun plugin to get fancier, but it is simple enough right now that it gets the job done.