+1 On Mar 12, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Walter Mourão <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, now I understand... > > I think it is "one" of the problems. Instead thinking about what it is >> wrong, I'm trying to thing on which steps should we take to enhance >> trinidad. >> >> If the objective is rewrite trinidad components using a theorical >> javascript library, it is necessary to take these steps first: >> >> 1. Document current trinidad javascript api and identify what do we need to >> implement, or in other words, which part of the code is api and which one is >> implementation details. >> >> 2. Try to make easier generate custom components using trinidad. >> > > you are addressing the infrastructure "fault" to easier the next step... > agreed. > > Thanks, > > Walter Mourão > http://waltermourao.com.br > http://arcadian.com.br > http://oriens.com.br > > > > 2011/3/12 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> > >> Hi Walter >> >> 2011/3/12 Walter Mourão <[email protected]> >> >>> Hi Leonardo, >>> >>> I'm not sure I've got the idea... do you think the javascript >>> documentation is THE big problem ? I really don't have an opinion because I >>> didn't go deeper in Trinidad javascript code. >>> >> >> I think it is "one" of the problems. Instead thinking about what it is >> wrong, I'm trying to thing on which steps should we take to enhance >> trinidad. >> >> If the objective is rewrite trinidad components using a theorical >> javascript library, it is necessary to take these steps first: >> >> 1. Document current trinidad javascript api and identify what do we need to >> implement, or in other words, which part of the code is api and which one is >> implementation details. >> >> 2. Try to make easier generate custom components using trinidad. >> >> For the first step we can take the alternative I proposed before or even >> better use the code proposed by Scott if it is donated to MyFaces. The >> second step is being handled here: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1409 >> >> >>> >>> In your opinion the best solution is just continue improving the current >>> Trinidad client code ? As I stated before, my desire (so far) is the >>> combination of Trinidad with a good javascript UI package, this way we could >>> count with another community focused in the client side code. >>> >> >> In my opinion we need to improve the current Trinidad client and java code >> to open the possibility of new renderkits / components. I think the reason >> why use a well known javascript library is it is more easier to users to >> change to their needs. But maybe (note here I'm speculating) in some cases, >> users does not need a full renderkit, instead they could need only to modify >> one or two components, or maybe they just need to know where to change x or >> y to make the component work as they expected. >> >> I think first we need to take action on the previous steps, and then we >> should answer the checklist Werner (we can do it now, suggestions are >> welcome). After that we'll have a clear course of action. >> >> regards, >> >> Leonardo Uribe >> >>
