> Well, it took me a day to get things running. Maybe it was all my fault -- yet > some documentation might have saved me a lot of time. > > (1) The first point was to clean up my project from myfaces.jar which I > overlooked way too long. (I removed the library from the project right away > but that was not enough. I am using WTP with eclipse, and I also had to > remove the lib from the .deployables subdirectory of the project by hand. > Well, this is not really an issue of myfaces, but a hint could save other > people a lot of time too. Maybe it is a bug in WTP...)
I agree that we should add some documentation on how to migrate from 1.0.9 to 1.0.10. The project is moving very quickly right now and you are using a nightly build, you need to be prepared for some bumps. As for your IDE problems, as you say, that is not really a problem of myfaces. > (2) The TreeBacker has changed. It has four new methods. Without documentation > I don't know which ones are really necessary. As far as I understand the > (one) comment in the source of the example, one has to define only one of the > two methods > > public TreeNode getTreeData() > > and > > public TreeModel getExpandedTreeData() > > But > > public void setTree(HtmlTree tree) > public HtmlTree getTree() > public String expandAll() > > all have to be present? There are zero requirements for your backing bean. TreeBacker has several methods but these are just used to demonstrate possible applications of tree2. As the documentation in TreeBacker states, you can use either getTreeData() or getExpandedTreeData() to bind to the @value attribute. In other words, you can supply a TreeNodeBase with all of the child nodes contained in it (the usual way) or a TreeModel (the new way.) > I didn't check it systematically afterwards, but I think the old treeBacker -- > which is missing the last four methods -- does no longer work. Without > documentation and the sources of the examples it takes some time before one > browses the CVS online to find out... Are you saying the old TreeBacker does not work with the new examples? That's possible but not unexpected. If you are saying that your own code, which is based on the old TreeBacker, does not work, then that suprises me. > Which of these methods are necessary? > > (3) Maybe my example was wrong before and it didn't matter, but I think that > the meaning of the last parameter in the constructor of the TreeNodeBase has > changed: leafs are 'true' and nodes are 'false' now. My old example worked > the other way arround before -- for whatever reason. Not that I'm aware of. > Andreas Schenk sean
