Well, you guys have some good points here. I can accept the argument that these standards would improve customer satisfaction and QA w/ a serious decrease in R&D ;)
I certainly think these kinds of standards should be a part of the sandbox -> tomahawk graduation. Dennis Byrne >-----Original Message----- >From: Bruno Aranda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 04:25 PM >To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Committing new contributed components [was: Re: [jira] Closed: >(TOMAHAWK-165) ifMessage tag that renders children only if there is a message >for the specified component(s)] > >I am with Martin here. I think it is a natural process in an open >source project. If the component is good and the community uses it, it >is thoroughly documented and tested it will be promoted to tomahawk. >IMO, the sandbox is the place for "under construction" components, >prototypes and ideas, so everyone can give feedback to that. If the >component is not good enough, it will never be promoted. >Documentation and acceptable coverage javadocs should be a must for a >component to be promoted. JUnit testing is more than recommendable to >ensure stability of the component and to ease its maintaiment... >IMO, having a component in the sandbox does not ensure it is future. >The natural selection of the community will be the one to decide. The >more prepared is a component, the more its chances to survive... > >Cheers, > >Bruno > >On 3/30/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm explicitly -1 on putting this restriction on new components in the >> sandbox. >> >> The sandbox is a playground, and this is what it is supposed to be. >> >> I am +1 on only allowing a component to get to tomahawk if all those >> requirements are met. >> >> And by the way, we should really start to vote on the schedule component.... >> >> regards, >> >> Martin >> >> On 3/30/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > And Javadoc as well on the component. Examples, >> > Javadoc, tag documentation, etc. (And, if there >> > were a solid testing framework in place, unit tests >> > as well!) >> > >> > -- Adam >> > >> > >> > On 3/30/06, Jurgen Lust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > +1 >> > > A component is useless if people don't know how to use it. >> > > >> > > Jurgen >> > > >> > > Mike Kienenberger schreef: >> > > On 3/30/06, Bruno Aranda (JIRA) <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > Many thanks Mike! This component could be useful to many people. I have >> > > committed it into the sandbox. Could you prepare a documentation patch >> > > for >> > > the web site? >> > > >> > > I'd like to propose that we don't accept (ie, commit) any new >> > > components until such components have both an example and xdocs >> > > documentation as part of the patch. >> > > >> > > This should also be true of anything we ourselves put into the sandbox. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.irian.at >> >> Your JSF powerhouse - >> JSF Consulting, Development and >> Courses in English and German >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> >
