myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Winer <awi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Tomahawk Documentation --> (Was ADF Faces)
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:22:42 GMT
It's not a TLD file, since TLDs simply don't have any
of this information.  Instead, it's a faces-config file.

Our approach is that TLDs and JSP tags in general
are secondary artifacts;  faces-config is the primary
artifact.


-- Adam



On 2/16/06, Bill Dudney <bdudney@apache.org> wrote:
> That is great Adam,
>
> Is the source of the docs in the link below a standard tld file? if
> so that is great!
>
> TTFN,
>
> Bill Dudney
> MyFaces - myfaces.apache.org
> Wadi - incubator.apache.org/wadi
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Adam Winer wrote:
>
> > FWIW, one of the tools that will be coming from the ADF Faces side
> > of things is a Maven 2 report that goes from our metadata to
> > tagdocs that are a big improvement over the tlddoc generated
> > docs.  Tlddoc is pretty awful for JSF - every type is String,
> > nothing is "request time", there's no list of facets or events,
> > etc.  The docs we will generate have a structure more like:
> >
> >   http://tinyurl.com/bkayl
> >
> > I say "will" because I tried rewriting the tool a couple of weeks
> > ago using the AbstractMultiPageReport base class in Maven 2.0.2
> > and ended with conclusion that this bit of Maven 2 is
> > currently completely broken.  Grrrr....
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 2/15/06, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I disagree with the removal of the usage section.  The usage section
> >>> shows how to use the component in context which is not always
> >>> obvious.
> >>>  I don't see a problem with making it optional for trivial
> >>> components,
> >>> however.
> >>
> >> Yes well some usage sections are better then others.  I took a look
> >> again after reading your comment and some of those are decent.  I
> >> guess we can keep/port the existing ones for now.  Perhaps we can
> >> consider dropping again when we have the simple examples hosted on
> >> the
> >> zone.  The examples themselves show usage and the source code servlet
> >> allows you to see the JSF.  No sense maintaining two copies at that
> >> point.
> >>
> >>> I'm also not thrilled with the removal of the syntax section, but I
> >>> agree that the TLD docs could be a substitute.   My preference would
> >>> be to see the syntax section generated from the same source as
> >>> the TLD
> >>> docs, but I'm not volunteering to do the work at this time.  :)
> >>
> >> I agree that the automatic generation would be excellent.  I'm not
> >> volunteering either.  The TLD docs are done automatically and I
> >> bet if
> >> we looked carefully we would see that many of the components are
> >> already out of sync since its hard to keep the documentation up to
> >> date.
> >>
> >>> At minimum, the link to the TLD section should point directly to
> >>> the TLD
> >>> document for the component in question rather than to the TLD index.
> >>
> >> I agree.  That was what I was thinking.
> >>
> >>> Also, before the syntax section is removed, the TLD docs must be
> >>> updated to contain the same information.   That's not currently the
> >>> case (I used dataList as a test of this theory).
> >>
> >> Good point.  This could be done as each component is migrated to APT.
> >>
> >>> -Mike
> >>
> >> Sean
> >>
>
>

Mime
View raw message