sounds cool... as long as we get to see both of them (and there is some clear separation between sandbox and tomahawk), I am fine with that!
go ahead with removing the standard web-app, sounds good to me. regards, Martin On 7/11/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
