I like the idea of keeping them separate. The idea is that the andbox components aren't finalized and aren't yet released. Keeping them in two separate webapps might help reinforce this distinction.
My thinking was that we would also have two "tabs" on the website. One for tomahawk and one for sandbox. I was planning on doing a little work with that tomorrow so let me know if we want to go in a different direction. Also, I'm planning on removing the "standard" webapp from the examples subproject as part of the consolidation. I can tag the examples project "before_consolidation" so we can get it back if we need it. Sound good? sean On 7/10/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ah, I see! > > I thought we would add sandbox components in the normal simple > webapp... Do we really need to do the split? > > Wouldn't it be easier to just have the simple-webapp, and have a > section called "Sandbox" there, where playing around is allowed ;) > > regards, > > Martin > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry for the confusion. The example is in the simple "like" app but > > inside the sandbox war. Basically I set it up like simple but for the > > sandbox components. > > > > sean > > > > On 7/10/05, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The last time I saw the example, was in a war called sandbox.war and > > > not in the simple webapp, > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > 2005/7/10, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I seem to be blind - which is the page I would find the inputSuggest on? > > > > > > > > I just don't find it in the simple webapp. > > > > > > > > The ajaxInputSuggest you would find under ajaxInputSuggest, but it is > > > > -still- not working > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Cancel that. I just remembered that I added a simple example for > > > > > inputSuggest. Its already in the simple webapp. > > > > > > > > > > I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a > > > > > simple example for the ajax variant? > > > > > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, can you possibly provide this? > > > > > > > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, no hurry with that one.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, > > > > > > > and I > > > > > > > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later > > > > > > > on... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So let's wait until it matures a little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the > > > > > > > inputSuggest? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do > > > > > > > > that with > > > > > > > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating > > > > > > > > all of > > > > > > > > the examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are > > > > > > > > > illustrating - > > > > > > > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas > > > > > > > > > are keen > > > > > > > > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do > > > > > > > > > > with the > > > > > > > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is > > > > > > > > > > currently) for this, > > > > > > > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, > > > > > > > > > > alerts, > > > > > > > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible > > > > > > > > > > unstability of the > > > > > > > > > > sandbox components. > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the > > > > > > > > > > prefix 's' > > > > > > > > > > for the sandbox taglib. For me, it is OK, we should warn > > > > > > > > > > to everybody > > > > > > > > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a > > > > > > > > > > sandbox > > > > > > > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' > > > > > > > > > > to 'x'. > > > > > > > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the > > > > > > > > > > inputSuggest > > > > > > > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no > > > > > > > > > > tomahawk > > > > > > > > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not > > > > > > > > > > put both > > > > > > > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for > > > > > > > > > > > > non-jsCookMenu-cluttered > > > > > > > > > > > > stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean Schofield wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
