On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 21 Apr 2009, at 22:34, Jay Balunas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 21 Apr 2009, at 22:17, Jay Balunas wrote:
>
> faces (which would have page actions, faces messages, and perhaps engulf
>>>>> the current ui too)
>>>>>
>>>>
> Sounds good. We should impl page actions on top of JSF2 events I think.
>>>> FacesMessages aren't needed as they are now stored in the flashscope
by
>>>> default.
>>>>
>>>
> Pete - We had talked about having the ui component being separate from
>>> seam core and not depend on it. This would allow application to who are not
>>> using seam to take advantage of the ui component. This came up a while back
>>> in a discussion about the RichFaces validation components and moving them to
>>> seam-ui.
>>>
>>
>> Would this current approach satisfy that?
>>>
>>
> Yes. As I keep saying "there is no Seam core" in Seam 3 - all modules
>> will *just* depend on any JSR-299 impl :-) But you are actually asking "Can
>> the faces module degrade gracefully such that what can be used in a plain
>> JSF2 environment - no 299 - works" I think?
>>
>
> I misspoke regarding seam-core :-(
>
> I really mean depending on any other seam classes in other modules (
> including 299). If we are going to migrate some RichFaces components to
> seam-ui. I just want to make sure we don't end up requiring users to
> include X # of seam modules, and/or 299.
>
> iirc - I think we were discussing some of the bean validation code. We
> should discuss other components as well.
>
Ok, well we can add extra rules to this module:
* no non-optional dependencies on other jars (must be self contained)
* bean validation must have no deps outside BV api
I think it would be sensible to add a short contract.txt to each module to
include these requirements. Shane, could you add these?
I think that makes a lot of sense - I like the contract.txt!
--
blog:
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Jay