I think we could add the FAQ: Can I use myFaces extensions with the JSF RI?
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:32:54 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Matthias for all the work on the website! > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:29:15 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Manfred, > > > > thanks for feedback. > > > > Ok so we will have as far as I see our current website app > > and soon simplified web app. > > > > On subproject I don't want to run mailinglist on CVS > > > > and so on. Only a special folder in CVS like the > > Struts guys do with their subprojects (eg flow) > > > > @website: I just made some changes. Some other are following. > > One topic was Tomcat5.5.x issue. > > > > I am just uploading it! > > > > Did I miss something? > > > > -Matthias > > > > Manfred Geiler 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 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias We�endorf > > Aechterhoek 18 > > DE-48282 Emsdetten > > Germany > > phone: +49-2572-9170275 > > cell phone: +49-179-1118979 > > email: matzew AT apache DOT org > > url: http://www.wessendorf.net > > callto://mwessendorf (Skype) > > icq: 47016183 > > >
