If we go with the option of just adding simplified examples we should change what goes in the current examples application. I've been saying all along that its ok to have a few sets of examples.
Currently the myfaces-examples basically has a simple example of every component wrapped inside a more complicated set of JSP for the menu support, etc. I don't think we want to maintain two sets of pages for every component. That is my only point. Matthias, do you want to modify my simple examples and make a simple-examples webapp? What do you think? sean On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:43:12 +0100, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why *replace* current examples? > Let's start a new webapp called "simplesamples" or "tutorial" or > similar. At the time when every single component is part of this new > webapp we could still remove the old examples or make it deprecated. No > need to hurry, IMHO. > > +1 for simplified version > -1 for replacing the old examples now > > Regarding subproject: > Before dealing with the question of making a subproject for the > examples, we should rather think about making the extensions and > components a subproject, IMHO. > And if we speak of a subproject, we must also come to a common sense of > what we mean by that. Does subproject also mean a completely separated > CVS dir? That would make things unnecessary difficult (build process, > etc.), I think. Should we have separated mailing-lists? Hmm, even now > people sometimes have problems to differentiate between our two lists. > ;-) So, what remains, is the structure of our docs and the homepage. > Would be enough, IMHO. Clear separation of the kind "Getting started > with MyFaces Impl" , "Replacing RI", "MyFaces extended standard > components", "MyFaces custom components" and so on. > Thoughts? > > Manfred > > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: > > Hi, > > > > I thought about something like a *subproject* for our > > MyFaces examples sometimes before. > > > > We have now lot's of (different) applications that > > demonstrated the use of MyFaces (and its components) > > > > -the *hot* disscussed MyFaces-exmaple > > -Tiles example > > -WAP/WML example > > -the new HelloWorld example > > > > that is a lot's of good stuff! > > > > So why not creating a subproject for that? > > MyFaces is toplevel project and there is room > > for something like that. > > > > Struts has a similar facility. On SF they host > > some *cool* examples or enhancements that are > > not inside the *core* of Struts. > > > > We must not host our examples @sf, but we could > > start with something like > > > > http://myfaces.apache.org/examples > > > > so there is also room for some real world > > examples (using Spring, Hibernate, EJB,...) > > and also for the simplefied example. > > > > What do you think about something like that? > > > > -Matthias > > > > Sean Schofield wrote: > > > >> The vote is only on replacing the myfaces-examples with one that does > >> not use the menu, verbatim, etc. I agree that a fancy application > >> that shows off MyFaces is a good idea. > >> > >> Right now though, the examples are mostly used to show how each > >> component works. Its hard to focus on that when you are dealing with > >> subviews, menus, etc. So again: Can we replace myfaces-examples with > >> the simplified version? That is the question I am posing. > >> > >> As for the RI, those examples are not really relevant. If you want to > >> know how to use the tree component you will need a simplified example > >> from MyFaces. > >> > >> sean > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:38:53 -0800, Derek Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry, not going to vote here. > >>> > >>> I think what we need is multiple set of well-organized examples. > >>> Here're some ideas I can come up with: > >>> > >>> 1. simple examples - more like the helloworld and guess number type of > >>> examples. This set of exmaples are simple and more generic. > >>> > >>> 2. MyFaces specific examples - show the power of the new features > >>> MyFaces provides, e.g. new JSF components, tiles integration and > >>> portlet integration, etc. > >>> > >>> 3. More complex real world examples - like Petstore or duke's > >>> bookstore application. It not only shows JSF, but also shows the > >>> integration between JSF, and other frameworks, e.g. Spring, Hibernate, > >>> JDO, EJB, etc. > >>> > >>> If I have to vote, I would vote -1. The examples we have now are > >>> pretty good. It is always easy to get the simple examples, e.g. from > >>> Sun JSF RI and migrated it to MyFaces by simply replacing some jars. > >>> > >>> Derek > >>> > >>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:49:21 -0500, Sean Schofield > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> OK I am changing the subject to a simple vote. +1 if you favor > >>>> *replacing* myfaces-examples with a simplified version that strips > >>>> away the menu stuff. This is not a decision on how to handle testing. > >>>> I'd like Matthias to commit what I've sent him for reasons I > >>>> explained earlier. > >>>> > >>>> +1 = yes simplified examples is better > >>>> -1 = no leave examples the way they are > >>>> > >>>> For reference, Matthias posted a WAR he made using the files I sent > >>>> him. IMO you can easily imagine what this looks like without having > >>>> to do download it :-) > >>>> > >>>> http://www.apache.org/~matzew/myfaces-sean.war > >>>> > >>>> sean > >>>> > >>>> btw I vote +1 > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:06:20 -0500, Sean Schofield > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Martin, > >>>>> > >>>>> Matthias seemed to interpret your answer as favoring two sets of > >>>>> examples. One for simple examples and one basically the way it is > >>>>> now. I had a slightly different take on your answer. I thought you > >>>>> were agreeing with Sylvain that we should have one set of test > >>>>> examples and one set of simple examples. > >>>>> > >>>>> Are we both correct? Did you mean that the current examples would be > >>>>> the test examples? I don't personally think this is a good idea. > >>>>> Basically we will just be maintaining a second set of every example. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the test examples do not have to be inside the menu, etc. > >>>>> Obviously you want a *single* test example (and simple example) that > >>>>> uses the menu. But keeping every example inside the menu framework is > >>>>> what I object to. Its harder to understand and maintain. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have a few more simple examples to contribute but I am waiting for > >>>>> this to be resolved. Also I noticed Sylvain just updated his > >>>>> HtmlEditor example. Since I've already done all the work to simplify > >>>>> the examples we should decide if we are going to use them before more > >>>>> changes are made. > >>>>> > >>>>> sean > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > > >
