You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> on 2006/03/30 18:10:52 UTC
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)]
On 3/30/06, Bruno Aranda (JIRA) <de...@myfaces.apache.org> 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.
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)]
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
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 <ma...@gmail.com> 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 <aw...@gmail.com> 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 <Ju...@ugent.be> 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) <de...@myfaces.apache.org> 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
>
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)]
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
> 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
>
I agree with that, that a component has to have good docs before being
promoted into the tomahawk, for the sandbox, I would leave out the
requirements, because too much is in fluctuation there.
Btw. regarding the sandbox, I see it as a huge problem that some vendors
have started to integrate the sandbox as component set into their tools.
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)]
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
Oh, absolutely - the sandbox should have minimal entry requirements,
and maximal exit requirements. :)
-- Adam
On 3/30/06, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> 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 <aw...@gmail.com> 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 <Ju...@ugent.be> 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) <de...@myfaces.apache.org> 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
>
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)]
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
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 <aw...@gmail.com> 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 <Ju...@ugent.be> 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) <de...@myfaces.apache.org> 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
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)]
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
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 <Ju...@ugent.be> 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) <de...@myfaces.apache.org> 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.
>
>
>
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)]
Posted by Jurgen Lust <Ju...@UGent.be>.
+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) <de...@myfaces.apache.org> 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.
>