myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Schofield <sean.schofi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:12:41 GMT
I like the idea of keeping them separate.  The idea is that the andbox
components aren't finalized and aren't yet released.  Keeping them in
two separate webapps might help reinforce this distinction.

My thinking was that we would also have two "tabs" on the website. 
One for tomahawk and one for sandbox.  I was planning on doing a
little work with that tomorrow so let me know if we want to go in a
different direction.

Also, I'm planning on removing the "standard" webapp from the examples
subproject as part of the consolidation.  I can tag the examples
project "before_consolidation" so we can get it back if we need it. 
Sound good?

sean

On 7/10/05, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com> wrote:
> ah, I see!
> 
> I thought we would add sandbox components in the normal simple
> webapp... Do we really need to do the split?
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to just have the simple-webapp, and have a
> section called "Sandbox" there, where playing around is allowed ;)
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry for the confusion.  The example is in the simple "like" app but
> > inside the sandbox war.  Basically I set it up like simple but for the
> > sandbox components.
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/10/05, Bruno Aranda <brunoaranda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The last time I saw the example, was in a war called sandbox.war and
> > > not in the simple webapp,
> > >
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > > 2005/7/10, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com>:
> > > > I seem to be blind - which is the page I would find the inputSuggest on?
> > > >
> > > > I just don't find it in the simple webapp.
> > > >
> > > > The ajaxInputSuggest you would find under ajaxInputSuggest, but it is
> > > > -still- not working
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Cancel that.  I just remembered that I added a simple example for
> > > > > inputSuggest.  Its already in the simple webapp.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a
> > > > > simple example for the ajax variant?
> > > > >
> > > > > sean
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matt, can you possibly provide this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sean
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > Yes, no hurry with that one..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right
now, and I
> > > > > > > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets
later on...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So let's wait until it matures a little.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the
inputSuggest?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we
could do that with
> > > > > > > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by
duplicating all of
> > > > > > > > the examples.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how
it fits in the
> > > > > > > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples
are illustrating -
> > > > > > > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred
and Thomas are keen
> > > > > > > > > on having an example for them as well in the
new examples app.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <brunoaranda@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What
we should do with the
> > > > > > > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly
separated of the
> > > > > > > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like
it is currently) for this,
> > > > > > > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples
with warnings, alerts,
> > > > > > > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the
possible unstability of the
> > > > > > > > > > sandbox components.
> > > > > > > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest
example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > > > > > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK,
we should warn to everybody
> > > > > > > > > > using sandbox components in its applications
that when a sandbox
> > > > > > > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will
change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > > > > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix
'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > > > > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and
there are no tomahawk
> > > > > > > > > > components in the example. But, if we did
this we could not put both
> > > > > > > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same
page...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <manfred.geiler@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <grants@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with
separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for
this?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bdudney@mac.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up
for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > > > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean
Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I created the simple examples
because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > > > > > > > cluttering them up because they
were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > >  We still needed an example that
showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > > > > > > > argued that we should keep the
old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created
an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > > > > > > > so that it points to the standard.
So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining
the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > > > > > > > propose. When we create a new
component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > > > > > > > add it to both examples and so
they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > > > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping
standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples,
etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > > > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That
will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > > > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get
agreement.)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bdudney@mac.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard
and the code in simple/
> > > > > > > > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections
to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > other?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  .
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message