It seems like we should keep our extensions/components in a separate branch from our api/impl this would encourage interoperability between different implementations.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:52:54 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > done. > > Bruno Aranda wrote: > > 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 > >>> > >> > > > > -- > 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 > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
