Hi,
s:tableSuggestAjax strongly relates to s:inputSuggestAjax, so both
components should be moved together.
cheers,
Gerald
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Leonardo Uribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I'm doing the related tasks of move sandbox components that has reached the
conditions to be
Hi Andrew,
Will DOJO be optional for tomahawk or will promoting these components
force more 3rd party library dependencies to be added to tomahawk
(regarding the Ajax components)?
The ajax components all have a dependency to dojo, there is no other
js library involved.
As long as you are
Leonardo Uribe wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM, simon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The list of components is fine. And I very much appreciate all
your work
on this and the tomahawk bugs you've been fixing recently.
However at the risk of
Hi *,
if Leonardo does as discussed, we can have both the 1.1 version and
1.2 from the same branch. (I don't see why this shouldn't be
possible).
regards,
Martin
On 3/4/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leonardo Uribe wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM, simon [EMAIL
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
Hi *,
if Leonardo does as discussed, we can have both the 1.1 version and
1.2 from the same branch. (I don't see why this shouldn't be
possible).
Sorry, I must have missed this as discussed discussion.
Do you mean that there will be:
* no use of new for-loops
Hi Simon,
the three of us (Leonardo, you, me) discussed this in our
component-generation discussion.
@use of 1.2 constructs: yes, you are right, it should not use any 1.2
constructs (at a maximum - with reflection, so that we stay
independent). Facelets does something similar. We need a 1.2
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
Hi Simon,
the three of us (Leonardo, you, me) discussed this in our
component-generation discussion.
@use of 1.2 constructs: yes, you are right, it should not use any 1.2
constructs (at a maximum - with reflection, so that we stay
independent). Facelets does
Tomahawk could add standards based portlet support for 1.2.
On Mar 4, 2008, at 4:20 AM, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi Simon,
the three of us (Leonardo, you, me) discussed this in our
component-generation discussion.
@use of 1.2 constructs: yes, you are right, it should not
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
Hi *,
if Leonardo does as discussed, we can have both the 1.1 version and
1.2 from the same branch. (I don't see why this shouldn't be
possible).
One idea (of many ideas that I have to do this) is use the following layout
for tomahawk trunk
build
core
core12
Hi
I'm doing the related tasks of move sandbox components that has reached the
conditions to be upgraded. Finally the list proposed is this:
s:convertBoolean
s:convertDateTime
s:convertNumber
s:form
s:inputSuggest
s:inputSuggestAjax
s:pprPanelGroup
s:passwordStrength
s:selectManyPicklist
Leonardo,
My limitRendered is pretty much not going to change (feature
complete), would this be a good candidate to promote as well or should
it be considered for the commons project instead?
http://myfaces.apache.org/sandbox/limitRendered.html
-Andrew
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Leonardo
Will DOJO be optional for tomahawk or will promoting these components
force more 3rd party library dependencies to be added to tomahawk
(regarding the Ajax components)?
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Leonardo Uribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I'm doing the related tasks of move sandbox
My limitRendered is pretty much not going to change (feature
complete), would this be a good candidate to promote as well or should
it be considered for the commons project instead?
Yes, you are right. Has doc, site doc and the examples works with RI and
Myfaces. It was a typo error on my list
We can reference the component on the tld of tomahawk, but the hypotetical
DOJO commons module jar should be referenced too. How we can do this
optional?
Maven has an optional scope on dependencies. Believe it looks like:
dependency
groupId /
artifactId /
version /
it's:
optionaltrue/optional
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Andrew Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can reference the component on the tld of tomahawk, but the
hypotetical
DOJO commons module jar should be referenced too. How we can do this
optional?
Maven has an optional scope
optionaltrue/optional
Ah, Ok, I never used it before.
But checking the code of dojo component I cannot see any external lib (since
all dojo javascript are copied on src/main/resources).
hmmm, bad memory, thanks Cristi
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Cristi Toth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's:
optionaltrue/optional
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Andrew Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can reference the component on the tld of tomahawk, but the
hypotetical
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:59 -0500, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
Hi
I'm doing the related tasks of move sandbox components that has
reached the conditions to be upgraded. Finally the list proposed is
this:
s:convertBoolean
s:convertDateTime
s:convertNumber
s:form
s:inputSuggest
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM, simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The list of components is fine. And I very much appreciate all your work
on this and the tomahawk bugs you've been fixing recently.
However at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like to
point out that AFAIK there
I agree with Leonardo totally. Just because you have a 2.0 branch does
not mean that you drop support for 1.1. It simply means that things
which cannot be made 1.1 compatible continue to migrate and that the
stuff which is already in place, embraces any emerging standards.
Furthermore, it
20 matches
Mail list logo
