I am for having only one set of examples. Simple examples are very useful too see and learn how a component works, but more complex examples show how different components can be used to reach a common objective. Also, backing beans from the examples are very useful too learn (I learnt a lot from them). I would only create one set of examples, but with two sections, one with examples for every component isolated, and one with more complex examples,
Regards, Bruno 2005/7/8, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Can we get a few more +1's for this? > > sean > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > yes now the cobwebs are clearing... > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making > > a JSCookMenu example. > > > > TTFN, > > > > -bd- > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote: > > > > > A little background ... > > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc. > > > We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose. > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly* > > > the same. > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.) > > > > > > sean > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi All, > > >> > > >> It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/ > > >> standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the > > >> other? > > >> > > >> TTFN, > > >> > > >> -bd- > > >> > > > > > > > >
