Oh, absolutely - the sandbox should have minimal entry requirements, and maximal exit requirements. :)
-- Adam 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 >
