proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>]

Hi All,

It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/ 
standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the other?

TTFN,

-bd-

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>]

Due to a mistake, a Sean mail and another from me have gone offlist. I
copy them here...

<Sean>
Bruno's idea sounds good.  At a minimum we need a simple example for
every component (which we pretty much have now.)  The standard
examples are just redundant (except for they show off the menu stuff.)

Also, notice how the tree2 examples work.  There is a very simple
example but then there are a few more examples showing different
variations with more complex configuration.  That might be an
alternative to having two distinct sections.
</Sean>

And my reply:

<Bruno>
I like the tree2 examples :-). To be effective, now I would
concentrate in the simple examples and discard the standard. I like
the idea of showing different 'configurations' of the sample element
(as tree2), because you can get a better idea of the different
possibilities of a component. But, I would like to see in the future
more complex examples combinating components and showing best
practices. This is always extremely useful and allows to have a better
idea of the picture :-)
</Bruno>

Regards,

Bruno

2005/7/8, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>:
> I am for having only one set of examples. Simple examples are very
> useful too see and learn how a component works, but more complex
> examples show how different components can be used to reach a common
> objective. Also, backing beans from the examples are very useful too
> learn (I learnt a lot from them).
> I would only create one set of examples, but with two sections, one
> with examples for every component isolated, and one with more complex
> examples,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 2005/7/8, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>:
> > Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > >
> > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > >
> > > TTFN,
> > >
> > > -bd-
> > >
> > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > >
> > > > A little background ...
> > > >
> > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > >
> > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > so that it points to the standard.  So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > the same.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > propose.  When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > over time.  I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > standard was trying to do.)  That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > >
> > > > sean
> > > >
> > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi All,
> > > >>
> > > >> It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > >> standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > >> other?
> > > >>
> > > >> TTFN,
> > > >>
> > > >> -bd-
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>]

I am for having only one set of examples. Simple examples are very
useful too see and learn how a component works, but more complex
examples show how different components can be used to reach a common
objective. Also, backing beans from the examples are very useful too
learn (I learnt a lot from them).
I would only create one set of examples, but with two sections, one
with examples for every component isolated, and one with more complex
examples,

Regards,

Bruno

2005/7/8, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>:
> Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> 
> sean
> 
> On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> >
> > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > a JSCookMenu example.
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd-
> >
> > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> >
> > > A little background ...
> > >
> > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > >
> > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > so that it points to the standard.  So the source code is *exactly*
> > > the same.
> > >
> > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > propose.  When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > over time.  I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > standard was trying to do.)  That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > >> standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > >> other?
> > >>
> > >> TTFN,
> > >>
> > >> -bd-
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>]

+1

+1

+1


There's 3 for ya ;)


--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://www.edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
AIM:   jmitchtx
MSN:   jmitchell@apache.org
Skype: jmitchtx

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sean Schofield" <se...@gmail.com>
To: "MyFaces Development" <de...@myfaces.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple


Can we get a few more +1's for this?

sean

On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> 
> if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> a JSCookMenu example.
> 
> TTFN,
> 
> -bd-
> 
> On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> 
> > A little background ...
> >
> > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> >
> > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > so that it points to the standard.  So the source code is *exactly*
> > the same.
> >
> > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > propose.  When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > over time.  I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > standard was trying to do.)  That will take a little bit of time so we
> > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> >> standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> >> other?
> >>
> >> TTFN,
> >>
> >> -bd-
> >>
> >
> 
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

There is a page for that,

but as I said before - I am far from being finished, it doesn't work now ;)

I just had to check it in as I wanted to work on it from home as well.

regards,

Martin

On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cancel that.  I just remembered that I added a simple example for
> inputSuggest.  Its already in the simple webapp.
> 
> I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a
> simple example for the ajax variant?
> 
> sean
> 
> On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)
> >
> > Matt, can you possibly provide this?
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, no hurry with that one..
> > >
> > > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
> > > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...
> > >
> > > So let's wait until it matures a little.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> > > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> > > > the examples.
> > > >
> > > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> > > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> > > >
> > > > sean
> > > >
> > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > > > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > > > > sandbox components.
> > > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > > > other?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

sounds cool...

as long as we get to see both of them (and there is some clear
separation between sandbox and tomahawk), I am fine with that!

go ahead with removing the standard web-app, sounds good to me.

regards,

Martin

On 7/11/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of keeping them separate.  The idea is that the andbox
> components aren't finalized and aren't yet released.  Keeping them in
> two separate webapps might help reinforce this distinction.
> 
> My thinking was that we would also have two "tabs" on the website.
> One for tomahawk and one for sandbox.  I was planning on doing a
> little work with that tomorrow so let me know if we want to go in a
> different direction.
> 
> Also, I'm planning on removing the "standard" webapp from the examples
> subproject as part of the consolidation.  I can tag the examples
> project "before_consolidation" so we can get it back if we need it.
> Sound good?
> 
> sean
> 
> On 7/10/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ah, I see!
> >
> > I thought we would add sandbox components in the normal simple
> > webapp... Do we really need to do the split?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be easier to just have the simple-webapp, and have a
> > section called "Sandbox" there, where playing around is allowed ;)
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sorry for the confusion.  The example is in the simple "like" app but
> > > inside the sandbox war.  Basically I set it up like simple but for the
> > > sandbox components.
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> > > On 7/10/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The last time I saw the example, was in a war called sandbox.war and
> > > > not in the simple webapp,
> > > >
> > > > Bruno
> > > >
> > > > 2005/7/10, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > I seem to be blind - which is the page I would find the inputSuggest on?
> > > > >
> > > > > I just don't find it in the simple webapp.
> > > > >
> > > > > The ajaxInputSuggest you would find under ajaxInputSuggest, but it is
> > > > > -still- not working
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Cancel that.  I just remembered that I added a simple example for
> > > > > > inputSuggest.  Its already in the simple webapp.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a
> > > > > > simple example for the ajax variant?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sean
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Matt, can you possibly provide this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Yes, no hurry with that one..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
> > > > > > > > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So let's wait until it matures a little.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> > > > > > > > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> > > > > > > > > the examples.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> > > > > > > > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > > > > > > > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > > > > > > > > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > > > > > > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > > > > > > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > > > > > > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > > > > > > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > > > > > > > > > sandbox components.
> > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > > > > > > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > > > > > > > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > > > > > > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > > > > > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > > > > > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > > > > > > > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > > > > > > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > > > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > > > > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  .
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

I like the idea of keeping them separate.  The idea is that the andbox
components aren't finalized and aren't yet released.  Keeping them in
two separate webapps might help reinforce this distinction.

My thinking was that we would also have two "tabs" on the website. 
One for tomahawk and one for sandbox.  I was planning on doing a
little work with that tomorrow so let me know if we want to go in a
different direction.

Also, I'm planning on removing the "standard" webapp from the examples
subproject as part of the consolidation.  I can tag the examples
project "before_consolidation" so we can get it back if we need it. 
Sound good?

sean

On 7/10/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ah, I see!
> 
> I thought we would add sandbox components in the normal simple
> webapp... Do we really need to do the split?
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to just have the simple-webapp, and have a
> section called "Sandbox" there, where playing around is allowed ;)
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry for the confusion.  The example is in the simple "like" app but
> > inside the sandbox war.  Basically I set it up like simple but for the
> > sandbox components.
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/10/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The last time I saw the example, was in a war called sandbox.war and
> > > not in the simple webapp,
> > >
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > > 2005/7/10, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > I seem to be blind - which is the page I would find the inputSuggest on?
> > > >
> > > > I just don't find it in the simple webapp.
> > > >
> > > > The ajaxInputSuggest you would find under ajaxInputSuggest, but it is
> > > > -still- not working
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Cancel that.  I just remembered that I added a simple example for
> > > > > inputSuggest.  Its already in the simple webapp.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a
> > > > > simple example for the ajax variant?
> > > > >
> > > > > sean
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matt, can you possibly provide this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sean
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Yes, no hurry with that one..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
> > > > > > > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So let's wait until it matures a little.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> > > > > > > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> > > > > > > > the examples.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> > > > > > > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > > > > > > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > > > > > > > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > > > > > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > > > > > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > > > > > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > > > > > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > > > > > > > > sandbox components.
> > > > > > > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > > > > > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > > > > > > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > > > > > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > > > > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > > > > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > > > > > > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > > > > > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > > > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > > > > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > > > > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > > > > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > > > > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > > > > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > > > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > > > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > > > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > > > > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > other?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >  .
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

ah, I see!

I thought we would add sandbox components in the normal simple
webapp... Do we really need to do the split?

Wouldn't it be easier to just have the simple-webapp, and have a
section called "Sandbox" there, where playing around is allowed ;)

regards,

Martin

On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion.  The example is in the simple "like" app but
> inside the sandbox war.  Basically I set it up like simple but for the
> sandbox components.
> 
> sean
> 
> On 7/10/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The last time I saw the example, was in a war called sandbox.war and
> > not in the simple webapp,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > 2005/7/10, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > I seem to be blind - which is the page I would find the inputSuggest on?
> > >
> > > I just don't find it in the simple webapp.
> > >
> > > The ajaxInputSuggest you would find under ajaxInputSuggest, but it is
> > > -still- not working
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Cancel that.  I just remembered that I added a simple example for
> > > > inputSuggest.  Its already in the simple webapp.
> > > >
> > > > I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a
> > > > simple example for the ajax variant?
> > > >
> > > > sean
> > > >
> > > > On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt, can you possibly provide this?
> > > > >
> > > > > sean
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, no hurry with that one..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
> > > > > > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So let's wait until it matures a little.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> > > > > > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> > > > > > > the examples.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> > > > > > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > > > > > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > > > > > > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > > > > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > > > > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > > > > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > > > > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > > > > > > > sandbox components.
> > > > > > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > > > > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > > > > > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > > > > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > > > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > > > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > > > > > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > > > > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > > > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > > > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > > > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > > > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > > > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > > > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > > > > > > other?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  .
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

Sorry for the confusion.  The example is in the simple "like" app but
inside the sandbox war.  Basically I set it up like simple but for the
sandbox components.

sean

On 7/10/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The last time I saw the example, was in a war called sandbox.war and
> not in the simple webapp,
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 2005/7/10, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > I seem to be blind - which is the page I would find the inputSuggest on?
> >
> > I just don't find it in the simple webapp.
> >
> > The ajaxInputSuggest you would find under ajaxInputSuggest, but it is
> > -still- not working
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Cancel that.  I just remembered that I added a simple example for
> > > inputSuggest.  Its already in the simple webapp.
> > >
> > > I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a
> > > simple example for the ajax variant?
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> > > On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)
> > > >
> > > > Matt, can you possibly provide this?
> > > >
> > > > sean
> > > >
> > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yes, no hurry with that one..
> > > > >
> > > > > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
> > > > > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...
> > > > >
> > > > > So let's wait until it matures a little.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> > > > > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> > > > > > the examples.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> > > > > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sean
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > > > > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > > > > > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > > > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > > > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > > > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > > > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > > > > > > sandbox components.
> > > > > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > > > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > > > > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > > > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > > > > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > > > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > > > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > > > > > other?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>]

The last time I saw the example, was in a war called sandbox.war and
not in the simple webapp,

Bruno

2005/7/10, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> I seem to be blind - which is the page I would find the inputSuggest on?
> 
> I just don't find it in the simple webapp.
> 
> The ajaxInputSuggest you would find under ajaxInputSuggest, but it is
> -still- not working
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cancel that.  I just remembered that I added a simple example for
> > inputSuggest.  Its already in the simple webapp.
> >
> > I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a
> > simple example for the ajax variant?
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)
> > >
> > > Matt, can you possibly provide this?
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Yes, no hurry with that one..
> > > >
> > > > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
> > > > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...
> > > >
> > > > So let's wait until it matures a little.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> > > > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> > > > > the examples.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> > > > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> > > > >
> > > > > sean
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > > > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > > > > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > > > > > sandbox components.
> > > > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > > > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > > > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > > > > other?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

I seem to be blind - which is the page I would find the inputSuggest on?

I just don't find it in the simple webapp.

The ajaxInputSuggest you would find under ajaxInputSuggest, but it is
-still- not working

regards,

Martin


On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cancel that.  I just remembered that I added a simple example for
> inputSuggest.  Its already in the simple webapp.
> 
> I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a
> simple example for the ajax variant?
> 
> sean
> 
> On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)
> >
> > Matt, can you possibly provide this?
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, no hurry with that one..
> > >
> > > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
> > > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...
> > >
> > > So let's wait until it matures a little.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> > > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> > > > the examples.
> > > >
> > > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> > > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> > > >
> > > > sean
> > > >
> > > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > > > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > > > > sandbox components.
> > > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > > > other?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

Cancel that.  I just remembered that I added a simple example for
inputSuggest.  Its already in the simple webapp.

I will turn the question around to you then ... can you provide a
simple example for the ajax variant?

sean

On 7/9/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)
> 
> Matt, can you possibly provide this?
> 
> sean
> 
> On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, no hurry with that one..
> >
> > It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
> > will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...
> >
> > So let's wait until it matures a little.
> >
> > In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> > > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> > > the examples.
> > >
> > > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> > > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> > > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> > > >
> > > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > > > sandbox components.
> > > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruno
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > > the same.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sean
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > > other?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

I agree no hurry (I'm still working on reorg follow up.)

Matt, can you possibly provide this?

sean

On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, no hurry with that one..
> 
> It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
> will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...
> 
> So let's wait until it matures a little.
> 
> In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> > a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> > the examples.
> >
> > I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> > sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> > >
> > > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > > sandbox components.
> > > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Bruno
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sean
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > > the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sean
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > > other?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TTFN,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -bd-
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

Yes, no hurry with that one..

It's really just there for trying out the AJAX stuff right now, and I
will sure want to merge the two component's feature sets later on...

So let's wait until it matures a little.

In the meantime, could you provide a sample page for the inputSuggest?

regards,

Martin

On 7/10/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
> a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
> the examples.
> 
> I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
> sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.
> 
> sean
> 
> On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> > wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> > on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> >
> > Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > > sandbox components.
> > > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > >
> > > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > > stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > > >
> > > > > sean
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > > >
> > > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > > >
> > > > > TTFN,
> > > > >
> > > > > -bd-
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  A little background ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > > the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > > >
> > > > > sean
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > > other?
> > > > >
> > > > > TTFN,
> > > > >
> > > > > -bd-
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

That's fine to demonstrate the layout stuff but we could do that with
a few foo.jsp pages instead of confusing things by duplicating all of
the examples.

I will reserve comment on ajaxInputSuggest and how it fits in the
sandbox until I have a chance to see it up close.

sean

On 7/9/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
> wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
> on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.
> 
> Apart from that, a +1 from me...
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> > sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> > tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> > or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> > use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> > sandbox components.
> > BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> > for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> > using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> > component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> > I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> > example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> > components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> > sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> > 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > > stuff.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > > >
> > > > sean
> > > >
> > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > > >
> > > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > > >
> > > > TTFN,
> > > >
> > > > -bd-
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  A little background ...
> > > >
> > > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > > >
> > > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > > the same.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > > >
> > > > sean
> > > >
> > > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > > other?
> > > >
> > > > TTFN,
> > > >
> > > > -bd-
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

Well, there is another thing the old examples are illustrating -
wasn't that the layout stuff? I wonder if Manfred and Thomas are keen
on having an example for them as well in the new examples app.

Apart from that, a +1 from me...

regards,

Martin

On 7/9/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
> sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
> tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
> or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
> use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
> sandbox components.
> BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
> for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
> using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
> component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
> I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
> example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
> components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
> sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > +1
> >
> > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> > >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > >
> > >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> > >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> > >
> > > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > > a JSCookMenu example.
> > >
> > > TTFN,
> > >
> > > -bd-
> > >
> > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  A little background ...
> > >
> > > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> > >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> > >
> > > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > > the same.
> > >
> > > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> > > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Hi All,
> > >
> > > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > > other?
> > >
> > > TTFN,
> > >
> > > -bd-
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>]

This brings another issue to my mind. What we should do with the
sandbox components. IMO they should be clearly separated of the
tomahawk ones. I would do another war (like it is currently) for this,
or, if not, a new section of the examples with warnings, alerts,
use-at-your-own-risks, etc regarding the possible unstability of the
sandbox components.
BTW, I've seen that the ajaxInputSuggest example uses the prefix 's'
for the sandbox taglib.  For me, it is OK, we should warn to everybody
using sandbox components in its applications that when a sandbox
component goes to tomahawk the prefix will change from 's' to 'x'.
I've seen that Sean has used the prefix 'x' for the inputSuggest
example, as it is alone in the page and there are no tomahawk
components in the example. But, if we did this we could not put both
sandbox and tomahawk components in the same page...

Regards,

Bruno


2005/7/8, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> +1
> 
> 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
> >  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> > stuff.
> >
> >
> >  Sean Schofield wrote:
> >  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> >
> > if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> > a JSCookMenu example.
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd-
> >
> > On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >  A little background ...
> >
> > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> >
> > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> > the same.
> >
> > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >  Hi All,
> >
> > It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> > standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> > other?
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd-
> >
> >
> >
> >  .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>]

+1

2005/7/8, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com>:
>  +1 for consolidation, yet with separate areas for non-jsCookMenu-cluttered
> stuff.
>  
>  
>  Sean Schofield wrote: 
>  Can we get a few more +1's for this?
> 
> sean
> 
> On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
>  
>  
>  yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> 
> if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> a JSCookMenu example.
> 
> TTFN,
> 
> -bd-
> 
> On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> 
>  
>  
>  A little background ...
> 
> I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
>  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> 
> When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> so that it points to the standard. So the source code is *exactly*
> the same.
> 
> I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> propose. When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> over time. I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> standard was trying to do.) That will take a little bit of time so we
> need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> 
> sean
> 
> On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>  
>  
>  Hi All,
> 
> It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> other?
> 
> TTFN,
> 
> -bd-
> 
>  
>  
>  .
> 
>  
>  
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

Can we get a few more +1's for this?

sean

On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> yes now the cobwebs are clearing...
> 
> if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making
> a JSCookMenu example.
> 
> TTFN,
> 
> -bd-
> 
> On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> 
> > A little background ...
> >
> > I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> > cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
> >  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> > argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
> >
> > When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> > so that it points to the standard.  So the source code is *exactly*
> > the same.
> >
> > I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> > propose.  When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> > add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> > over time.  I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> > few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> > standard was trying to do.)  That will take a little bit of time so we
> > need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> >> standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the
> >> other?
> >>
> >> TTFN,
> >>
> >> -bd-
> >>
> >
> 
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>]

yes now the cobwebs are clearing...

if we get agreement I'd be up for getting rid of standard and making  
a JSCookMenu example.

TTFN,

-bd-

On Jul 7, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:

> A little background ...
>
> I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
> cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
>  We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
> argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.
>
> When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
> so that it points to the standard.  So the source code is *exactly*
> the same.
>
> I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
> propose.  When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
> add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
> over time.  I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
> few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
> standard was trying to do.)  That will take a little bit of time so we
> need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)
>
> sean
>
> On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
>> standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the  
>> other?
>>
>> TTFN,
>>
>> -bd-
>>
>

Re: proposal: consolodate examples/standard & examples/simple

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

A little background ...

I created the simple examples because they had way less HTML
cluttering them up because they were not running inside of menus, etc.
 We still needed an example that showed off JSCookMenu so people
argued that we should keep the old examples around for this purpose.

When I did the reorg, I created an svn:external for the src in simple
so that it points to the standard.  So the source code is *exactly*
the same.

I would like to stop maintaining the two sets of examples as you
propose.  When we create a new component nobody is going to want to
add it to both examples and so they will get hopelessly out of sync
over time.  I would suggest dropping standard examples and adding a
few fancy JSCookMenu examples, etc. to simple (that show off what
standard was trying to do.)  That will take a little bit of time so we
need a volunteer (if we can get agreement.)

sean

On 7/7/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> It appears that the code in examples/standard and the code in simple/
> standard is the same. Any objections to getting rid of one or the other?
> 
> TTFN,
> 
> -bd-
>