Due to a mistake, a Sean mail and another from me have gone offlist. I copy them here...
<Sean> Bruno's idea sounds good. At a minimum we need a simple example for every component (which we pretty much have now.) The standard examples are just redundant (except for they show off the menu stuff.) Also, notice how the tree2 examples work. There is a very simple example but then there are a few more examples showing different variations with more complex configuration. That might be an alternative to having two distinct sections. </Sean> And my reply: <Bruno> I like the tree2 examples :-). To be effective, now I would concentrate in the simple examples and discard the standard. I like the idea of showing different 'configurations' of the sample element (as tree2), because you can get a better idea of the different possibilities of a component. But, I would like to see in the future more complex examples combinating components and showing best practices. This is always extremely useful and allows to have a better idea of the picture :-) </Bruno> Regards, Bruno 2005/7/8, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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- > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
