Ryan Lubke wrote:
> Ed Burns wrote:
>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:04:11 -0700, Ryan Lubke
>>>>>>> <Ryan.Lubke_at_Sun.COM> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> RL> Roger Kitain wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Hello Stan,
>>>>
>>>> For features "beyond the spec", we do have the jsf-extensions project
>>>> which is owned by Ed Burns. I'm ccing Ed.
>>>>
>>>
>> RL> I think in this case, modifications of the XSD would require
>> something RL> different.
>>
>> RL> Stan -
>>
>> RL> The sandbox suggestion sounds reasonable to me. Could you provide a
>> RL> small proposal on structure, and how it would relate to the
>> existing build
>> RL> environment (would there be options to include it by default, or
>> would
>> RL> it be a separate bundle)?
>>
>> I view jsf-extensions as the sandbox project, but I'm open to discussion
>> on having a really light-weight sandbox project within the jsf-impl code
>> base.
>>
>> Ryan and Stan, why do you not think jsf-extensions is a good place for
>> this?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>
> I don't believe Stan said it wasn't a good place.
>
> Since jsf-extensions is a drop-in addition to be used with JSF
> implementations, I think introducing
> items that break compatibility (such as XSD changes) shouldn't be there.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_javaserverfaces.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_javaserverfaces.dev.java.net
>
May not have to do XSD changes if we do it within an extension element.