You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> on 2006/02/10 19:32:23 UTC
Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Hi devs,
I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
Regards,
Bruno
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Sean Schofield schrieb:
> So are we basically redistributing the javascript stuff from Dojo?
>
> Sean
>
Yes the javascript stuff and some foundation classes and one tag which
only do a sane initialization of the system.
But as I said I think it is too early. I would have rather seen 1-2
actual components using the foundation classes to know if everything
works out as expected.
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
Ok sounds good.
On 2/11/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, basically, with some util classes to use the dojo features from
> another components,
>
> Bruno
>
> On 2/11/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So are we basically redistributing the javascript stuff from Dojo?
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > On 2/11/06, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You are absolutely right.
> > >
> > > In any case, we don't talk about pushing in an AJAX component, but the
> > > dojo-framework - which is a well known and respected framework and
> > > shouldn't represent a problem in tomahawk. We don't want to use it's
> > > AJAX functionality in tomahawk, but the event-listener stuff.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On 2/11/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > By the way,
> > > >
> > > > Given how much the ajax-related stuff changes it might be better to
> > > > not push this stuff into the trunk until we're absolutely sure that's
> > > > how we want it. In general I don't think needing something on a
> > > > project at work is a sufficient reason to put something into tomahawk.
> > > > You can always use the sandbox.jar in production just as easily as
> > > > you can tomahawk.jar.
> > > >
> > > > In this case I haven't had time to review things so I will trust the
> > > > judgement of others but as we become a more high profile ASF project I
> > > > think we should keep in mind that once we put stuff out there people
> > > > will rely on it and will not be happy if interfaces break or things
> > > > are removed.
> > > >
> > > > As Ted once pointed out to me, the project's main responsibility is to
> > > > serve the people who actually do the work (people like Bruno.) People
> > > > who just use our stuff and like to complain are a secondary concern.
> > > > Still, we should try and keep as many people happy as we can.
> > > >
> > > > Sean
> > > >
> > > > On 2/10/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > If its not a component then I guess that's ok. Can you add some docs
> > > > > to the website on how to us it etc?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sean
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/10/06, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > +1 absolutely
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2/10/06, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > doing these things. But I do think that we should go with dojo for new
> > > > > > > > stuff...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 on using dojo! I played with the stuff, after Werner added it to
> > > > > > Sandbox.
> > > > > > > Really neat stuff!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2/10/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > > > > > > > > this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > > > > > > > > is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > > > > > > > > the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > > > > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > > > > > > Courses in English and German
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
> > > > > > > 50674 Köln
> > > > > > > http://www.wessendorf.net
> > > > > > > mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Grant Smith
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://www.irian.at
> > >
> > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > Courses in English and German
> > >
> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > >
> >
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
Yes, basically, with some util classes to use the dojo features from
another components,
Bruno
On 2/11/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So are we basically redistributing the javascript stuff from Dojo?
>
> Sean
>
> On 2/11/06, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You are absolutely right.
> >
> > In any case, we don't talk about pushing in an AJAX component, but the
> > dojo-framework - which is a well known and respected framework and
> > shouldn't represent a problem in tomahawk. We don't want to use it's
> > AJAX functionality in tomahawk, but the event-listener stuff.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 2/11/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > By the way,
> > >
> > > Given how much the ajax-related stuff changes it might be better to
> > > not push this stuff into the trunk until we're absolutely sure that's
> > > how we want it. In general I don't think needing something on a
> > > project at work is a sufficient reason to put something into tomahawk.
> > > You can always use the sandbox.jar in production just as easily as
> > > you can tomahawk.jar.
> > >
> > > In this case I haven't had time to review things so I will trust the
> > > judgement of others but as we become a more high profile ASF project I
> > > think we should keep in mind that once we put stuff out there people
> > > will rely on it and will not be happy if interfaces break or things
> > > are removed.
> > >
> > > As Ted once pointed out to me, the project's main responsibility is to
> > > serve the people who actually do the work (people like Bruno.) People
> > > who just use our stuff and like to complain are a secondary concern.
> > > Still, we should try and keep as many people happy as we can.
> > >
> > > Sean
> > >
> > > On 2/10/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > If its not a component then I guess that's ok. Can you add some docs
> > > > to the website on how to us it etc?
> > > >
> > > > Sean
> > > >
> > > > On 2/10/06, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > +1 absolutely
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/10/06, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > doing these things. But I do think that we should go with dojo for new
> > > > > > > stuff...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 on using dojo! I played with the stuff, after Werner added it to
> > > > > Sandbox.
> > > > > > Really neat stuff!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2/10/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > > > > > > > this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > > > > > > > is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > > > > > > > the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > > > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > > > > > Courses in English and German
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
> > > > > > 50674 Köln
> > > > > > http://www.wessendorf.net
> > > > > > mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Grant Smith
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
So are we basically redistributing the javascript stuff from Dojo?
Sean
On 2/11/06, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are absolutely right.
>
> In any case, we don't talk about pushing in an AJAX component, but the
> dojo-framework - which is a well known and respected framework and
> shouldn't represent a problem in tomahawk. We don't want to use it's
> AJAX functionality in tomahawk, but the event-listener stuff.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 2/11/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > By the way,
> >
> > Given how much the ajax-related stuff changes it might be better to
> > not push this stuff into the trunk until we're absolutely sure that's
> > how we want it. In general I don't think needing something on a
> > project at work is a sufficient reason to put something into tomahawk.
> > You can always use the sandbox.jar in production just as easily as
> > you can tomahawk.jar.
> >
> > In this case I haven't had time to review things so I will trust the
> > judgement of others but as we become a more high profile ASF project I
> > think we should keep in mind that once we put stuff out there people
> > will rely on it and will not be happy if interfaces break or things
> > are removed.
> >
> > As Ted once pointed out to me, the project's main responsibility is to
> > serve the people who actually do the work (people like Bruno.) People
> > who just use our stuff and like to complain are a secondary concern.
> > Still, we should try and keep as many people happy as we can.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > On 2/10/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If its not a component then I guess that's ok. Can you add some docs
> > > to the website on how to us it etc?
> > >
> > > Sean
> > >
> > > On 2/10/06, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > +1 absolutely
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/10/06, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > doing these things. But I do think that we should go with dojo for new
> > > > > > stuff...
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 on using dojo! I played with the stuff, after Werner added it to
> > > > Sandbox.
> > > > > Really neat stuff!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2/10/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > > > > > > this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > > > > > > is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > > > > > > the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > > > > Courses in English and German
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
> > > > > 50674 Köln
> > > > > http://www.wessendorf.net
> > > > > mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Grant Smith
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
You are absolutely right.
In any case, we don't talk about pushing in an AJAX component, but the
dojo-framework - which is a well known and respected framework and
shouldn't represent a problem in tomahawk. We don't want to use it's
AJAX functionality in tomahawk, but the event-listener stuff.
regards,
Martin
On 2/11/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way,
>
> Given how much the ajax-related stuff changes it might be better to
> not push this stuff into the trunk until we're absolutely sure that's
> how we want it. In general I don't think needing something on a
> project at work is a sufficient reason to put something into tomahawk.
> You can always use the sandbox.jar in production just as easily as
> you can tomahawk.jar.
>
> In this case I haven't had time to review things so I will trust the
> judgement of others but as we become a more high profile ASF project I
> think we should keep in mind that once we put stuff out there people
> will rely on it and will not be happy if interfaces break or things
> are removed.
>
> As Ted once pointed out to me, the project's main responsibility is to
> serve the people who actually do the work (people like Bruno.) People
> who just use our stuff and like to complain are a secondary concern.
> Still, we should try and keep as many people happy as we can.
>
> Sean
>
> On 2/10/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If its not a component then I guess that's ok. Can you add some docs
> > to the website on how to us it etc?
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > On 2/10/06, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +1 absolutely
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/10/06, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > doing these things. But I do think that we should go with dojo for new
> > > > > stuff...
> > > >
> > > > +1 on using dojo! I played with the stuff, after Werner added it to
> > > Sandbox.
> > > > Really neat stuff!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/10/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > > > > > this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > > > > > is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > > > > > the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > >
> > > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > > > Courses in English and German
> > > > >
> > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
> > > > 50674 Köln
> > > > http://www.wessendorf.net
> > > > mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Grant Smith
> > >
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
By the way,
Given how much the ajax-related stuff changes it might be better to
not push this stuff into the trunk until we're absolutely sure that's
how we want it. In general I don't think needing something on a
project at work is a sufficient reason to put something into tomahawk.
You can always use the sandbox.jar in production just as easily as
you can tomahawk.jar.
In this case I haven't had time to review things so I will trust the
judgement of others but as we become a more high profile ASF project I
think we should keep in mind that once we put stuff out there people
will rely on it and will not be happy if interfaces break or things
are removed.
As Ted once pointed out to me, the project's main responsibility is to
serve the people who actually do the work (people like Bruno.) People
who just use our stuff and like to complain are a secondary concern.
Still, we should try and keep as many people happy as we can.
Sean
On 2/10/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If its not a component then I guess that's ok. Can you add some docs
> to the website on how to us it etc?
>
> Sean
>
> On 2/10/06, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 absolutely
> >
> >
> > On 2/10/06, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > doing these things. But I do think that we should go with dojo for new
> > > > stuff...
> > >
> > > +1 on using dojo! I played with the stuff, after Werner added it to
> > Sandbox.
> > > Really neat stuff!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 2/10/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > > > > this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > > > > is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > > > > the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruno
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > >
> > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > > Courses in English and German
> > > >
> > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
> > > 50674 Köln
> > > http://www.wessendorf.net
> > > mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Grant Smith
> >
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
If its not a component then I guess that's ok. Can you add some docs
to the website on how to us it etc?
Sean
On 2/10/06, Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 absolutely
>
>
> On 2/10/06, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > doing these things. But I do think that we should go with dojo for new
> > > stuff...
> >
> > +1 on using dojo! I played with the stuff, after Werner added it to
> Sandbox.
> > Really neat stuff!
> >
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On 2/10/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi devs,
> > > >
> > > > I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > > > this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > > > is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > > > the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Bruno
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://www.irian.at
> > >
> > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > Courses in English and German
> > >
> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
> > 50674 Köln
> > http://www.wessendorf.net
> > mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Grant Smith
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com>.
+1 absolutely
On 2/10/06, Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > doing these things. But I do think that we should go with dojo for new
> > stuff...
>
> +1 on using dojo! I played with the stuff, after Werner added it to
> Sandbox.
> Really neat stuff!
>
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 2/10/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi devs,
> > >
> > > I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > > this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > > is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > > the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bruno
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
> 50674 Köln
> http://www.wessendorf.net
> mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
--
Grant Smith
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com>.
> doing these things. But I do think that we should go with dojo for new
> stuff...
+1 on using dojo! I played with the stuff, after Werner added it to Sandbox.
Really neat stuff!
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 2/10/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
50674 Köln
http://www.wessendorf.net
mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
my +1 - obviously.
If there's someone objecting, you can always use the prototype way of
doing these things. But I do think that we should go with dojo for new
stuff...
regards,
Martin
On 2/10/06, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruno
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Ah excellent...
Thanks for the info, since we are all new to dojo, any info
which extends the knowledge can help
(and any component as well ;-) )
Laurie Harper schrieb:
> Late to the party, but I can show you how to do this better... ;-)
>
> Firstly, there's no need to use invalid markup with Dojo, provided
> you're using XHTML. You can use namespaces. Secondly, I have a Dojo
> Editor / JSF integration almost working that would let you simply do this:
>
> <dj:inputEdit toolbar="cut;copy;paste;..."/>
>
> The rendered result is something like this:
>
> <textarea id="_jsp1" dojo:widgetId="_jsp1"
> dojo:type="Editor" dojo:items="cut;copy;paste;..."
> ...>...</textarea>
>
> If you care about validation, you need to declare the 'dojo' namespace
> somewhere, as in (for example)
>
> <html xmlns="..." xmlns:dojo="http://dojotoolkit.org">
>
> (that's not quite enough, since that namespace URI doesn't point to
> anything useful, but you get the idea).
>
> HTH,
>
> L.
>
> Werner Punz wrote:
>> Actually I would love to have such a passthrough
>> but probably many people here would object it
>> due to the fact that the dojo tags break html validation.
>>
>> (I talked with Alex Russel the dojo core maintainer about this and he
>> said,
>> that in his opinion being lenient towards such things
>> is good, because it opens options, but he does not
>> want to close the doors for people who do not want this, hence
>> the various possibilities to trigger the components)
>>
>> Having such a passthrough in the input fields, div and the textara
>> would enable most dojo components out of the box, without scripting
>> (although div would break the jsf form submit)
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
>>> Aha!
>>>
>>> Thanks Werner,
>>>
>>> The key was to stick the javascript after the input (and remove the
>>> style). I'd tried a large permutation of these things, but it didn't
>>> occur to me that the javascript needed to be after the input area.
>>>
>>> Here's what I ended up doing (in facelets).
>>>
>>> Put this in the <head> tags:
>>>
>>> <sandbox:dojoInitializer require="dojo.widget.Editor"/>
>>>
>>> Put this in the form:
>>>
>>> <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
>>> required="#{true}"
>>> value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
>>> <script type="text/javascript">
>>> // <![CDATA[
>>> var editorArgs = {
>>> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
>>> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
>>> };
>>> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
>>>
>>> dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
>>> // ]]>
>>> </script>
>>>
>>> I decided to stick with the standard jsf inputAreaText component and
>>> use the fully-qualified path to the component (form-id : component-id)
>>> rather than using forceid.
>>>
>>> I agree that <s:richEdit id="editor"/> would be better. It seems to
>>> me that we could make such a tag emit the same code as I just created
>>> manually, at least in the short term.
>>>
>>> I was considering altering t:inputTextArea to support a passthrough
>>> "items" attribute as a temporary workaround, but it would have been
>>> quite a hack.
>>>
>>> I'll go ahead and update the wiki.
>>>
>>> On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>> Hi Mike I can only give pseudo code here,
>>>> first of all, in an actual JSF page I would like to see
>>>> code like this
>>>>
>>>> <s:richEdit id="editor"/>
>>>>
>>>> but we cannot have that for now:
>>>>
>>>> if you want to see the rich editor in action in a jsf page and if you
>>>> want to pass the parameter as well, use a normal textArea
>>>> (not the div because the div is not triggered on submit)
>>>>
>>>> <t:inputTextarea id="myId" forceId="true" />
>>>>
>>>> and then set a javascript in a verbatim area with following entries
>>>> (we forget the internal dojo id for now, since you wont need it here)
>>>> <f:verbatim>
>>>> <script type="text/javascript">
>>>> var editorArgs = {
>>>> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup",
>>>> "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
>>>> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
>>>> };
>>>> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
>>>> dojo.byId("myId"));
>>>>
>>>> </script>
>>>>
>>>> </f:verbatim>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that should work more or less
>>>>
>>>> what happens here
>>>>
>>>> first you define a text area in a form, so that we trigger the normal
>>>> jsf submits etc...
>>>>
>>>> secondly dojo now alters the text area into a full blown rich text
>>>> editor
>>>> via the fromScript function (the first argument specifies the widget
>>>> the text area has to be altered to, the second one the arguments passed
>>>> down to the area, the third argument is the id of the original control)
>>>>
>>>> now if you submit the altered control recongnizes that passes
>>>> the content into the original control (which still is lingering there
>>>> hidden) and the cycle goes through as expected.
>>>>
>>>> the reason why this code does not give you a second editor while
>>>> your code does is following line:
>>>>
>>>> > <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
>>>> > styleClass="dojo-Editor"
>>>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> what happens here is that you explicetly pass the
>>>> styleClass="dojo-Editor" which in itself also creates the dojo editor
>>>> you also trigger the editor creation script, hence you create
>>>> two editors from one single control (both internally with different
>>>> ids)
>>>>
>>>> you have two options, either remove the javascript for the component
>>>> creation, or remove the styleClass with the dojo-Editor style.
>>>> But having both results in two editors.
>>>>
>>>> So basically for most if not every component you have three ways
>>>> to create it dynamically
>>>> a) use the html validation breaking dojo tags
>>>> b) use a script to alter an existing control dynamically
>>>> c) use a special styleclass
>>>>
>>>> but combining 2 of these options results in a mess ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hope that sums it up (never mind all this dynamic stuff, if you
>>>> are not used to dynamic languages, they can be altered and adjusted
>>>> into the core, the same goes for the data structures like for instance
>>>> the dom tree)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
>>>>> On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>>> But I think you get the idea....
>>>>> You're giving me far too much credit. I don't understand the
>>>>> difference between what you said here and earlier :)
>>>>>
>>>>> How does this look on an actual JSF page?
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried sticking this in the <head> tags
>>>>>
>>>>> <script type="text/javascript">
>>>>> // <![CDATA[
>>>>> var editorArgs = {
>>>>> id:"theinternaldojoid",
>>>>> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup",
>>>>> "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
>>>>> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
>>>>> };
>>>>> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor",
>>>>> editorArgs,
>>>>>
>>>>> dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
>>>>> // ]]>
>>>>> </script>
>>>>>
>>>>> And this on my form:
>>>>>
>>>>> <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
>>>>> styleClass="dojo-Editor"
>>>>> required="#{true}"
>>>>> value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
>>>>>
>>>>> but I keep ending up with two separate input editors -- one that looks
>>>>> how I want it, but with no binding to a JSF component, and one that is
>>>>> decorated wrong, but is bound to the JSF component.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can explain it to me in terms a non-javascript person can
>>>>> understand, I can then update either the wiki and/or the dojo example
>>>>> so others like myself can use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Laurie Harper <la...@holoweb.net>.
Late to the party, but I can show you how to do this better... ;-)
Firstly, there's no need to use invalid markup with Dojo, provided
you're using XHTML. You can use namespaces. Secondly, I have a Dojo
Editor / JSF integration almost working that would let you simply do this:
<dj:inputEdit toolbar="cut;copy;paste;..."/>
The rendered result is something like this:
<textarea id="_jsp1" dojo:widgetId="_jsp1"
dojo:type="Editor" dojo:items="cut;copy;paste;..."
...>...</textarea>
If you care about validation, you need to declare the 'dojo' namespace
somewhere, as in (for example)
<html xmlns="..." xmlns:dojo="http://dojotoolkit.org">
(that's not quite enough, since that namespace URI doesn't point to
anything useful, but you get the idea).
HTH,
L.
Werner Punz wrote:
> Actually I would love to have such a passthrough
> but probably many people here would object it
> due to the fact that the dojo tags break html validation.
>
> (I talked with Alex Russel the dojo core maintainer about this and he said,
> that in his opinion being lenient towards such things
> is good, because it opens options, but he does not
> want to close the doors for people who do not want this, hence
> the various possibilities to trigger the components)
>
> Having such a passthrough in the input fields, div and the textara
> would enable most dojo components out of the box, without scripting
> (although div would break the jsf form submit)
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
> Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
>> Aha!
>>
>> Thanks Werner,
>>
>> The key was to stick the javascript after the input (and remove the
>> style). I'd tried a large permutation of these things, but it didn't
>> occur to me that the javascript needed to be after the input area.
>>
>> Here's what I ended up doing (in facelets).
>>
>> Put this in the <head> tags:
>>
>> <sandbox:dojoInitializer require="dojo.widget.Editor"/>
>>
>> Put this in the form:
>>
>> <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
>> required="#{true}"
>> value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
>>
>> <script type="text/javascript">
>> // <![CDATA[
>> var editorArgs = {
>> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
>> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
>> };
>> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
>>
>> dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
>> // ]]>
>> </script>
>>
>> I decided to stick with the standard jsf inputAreaText component and
>> use the fully-qualified path to the component (form-id : component-id)
>> rather than using forceid.
>>
>> I agree that <s:richEdit id="editor"/> would be better. It seems to
>> me that we could make such a tag emit the same code as I just created
>> manually, at least in the short term.
>>
>> I was considering altering t:inputTextArea to support a passthrough
>> "items" attribute as a temporary workaround, but it would have been
>> quite a hack.
>>
>> I'll go ahead and update the wiki.
>>
>> On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>> Hi Mike I can only give pseudo code here,
>>> first of all, in an actual JSF page I would like to see
>>> code like this
>>>
>>> <s:richEdit id="editor"/>
>>>
>>> but we cannot have that for now:
>>>
>>> if you want to see the rich editor in action in a jsf page and if you
>>> want to pass the parameter as well, use a normal textArea
>>> (not the div because the div is not triggered on submit)
>>>
>>> <t:inputTextarea id="myId" forceId="true" />
>>>
>>> and then set a javascript in a verbatim area with following entries
>>> (we forget the internal dojo id for now, since you wont need it here)
>>> <f:verbatim>
>>> <script type="text/javascript">
>>> var editorArgs = {
>>> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup",
>>> "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
>>> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
>>> };
>>> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
>>> dojo.byId("myId"));
>>>
>>> </script>
>>>
>>> </f:verbatim>
>>>
>>>
>>> that should work more or less
>>>
>>> what happens here
>>>
>>> first you define a text area in a form, so that we trigger the normal
>>> jsf submits etc...
>>>
>>> secondly dojo now alters the text area into a full blown rich text
>>> editor
>>> via the fromScript function (the first argument specifies the widget
>>> the text area has to be altered to, the second one the arguments passed
>>> down to the area, the third argument is the id of the original control)
>>>
>>> now if you submit the altered control recongnizes that passes
>>> the content into the original control (which still is lingering there
>>> hidden) and the cycle goes through as expected.
>>>
>>> the reason why this code does not give you a second editor while
>>> your code does is following line:
>>>
>>> > <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
>>> > styleClass="dojo-Editor"
>>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> what happens here is that you explicetly pass the
>>> styleClass="dojo-Editor" which in itself also creates the dojo editor
>>> you also trigger the editor creation script, hence you create
>>> two editors from one single control (both internally with different ids)
>>>
>>> you have two options, either remove the javascript for the component
>>> creation, or remove the styleClass with the dojo-Editor style.
>>> But having both results in two editors.
>>>
>>> So basically for most if not every component you have three ways
>>> to create it dynamically
>>> a) use the html validation breaking dojo tags
>>> b) use a script to alter an existing control dynamically
>>> c) use a special styleclass
>>>
>>> but combining 2 of these options results in a mess ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope that sums it up (never mind all this dynamic stuff, if you
>>> are not used to dynamic languages, they can be altered and adjusted
>>> into the core, the same goes for the data structures like for instance
>>> the dom tree)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
>>>> On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>> But I think you get the idea....
>>>> You're giving me far too much credit. I don't understand the
>>>> difference between what you said here and earlier :)
>>>>
>>>> How does this look on an actual JSF page?
>>>>
>>>> I tried sticking this in the <head> tags
>>>>
>>>> <script type="text/javascript">
>>>> // <![CDATA[
>>>> var editorArgs = {
>>>> id:"theinternaldojoid",
>>>> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup",
>>>> "colorGroup",
>>>> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
>>>> };
>>>> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
>>>>
>>>> dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
>>>> // ]]>
>>>> </script>
>>>>
>>>> And this on my form:
>>>>
>>>> <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
>>>> styleClass="dojo-Editor"
>>>> required="#{true}"
>>>> value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
>>>>
>>>> but I keep ending up with two separate input editors -- one that looks
>>>> how I want it, but with no binding to a JSF component, and one that is
>>>> decorated wrong, but is bound to the JSF component.
>>>>
>>>> If you can explain it to me in terms a non-javascript person can
>>>> understand, I can then update either the wiki and/or the dojo example
>>>> so others like myself can use it.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Actually I would love to have such a passthrough
but probably many people here would object it
due to the fact that the dojo tags break html validation.
(I talked with Alex Russel the dojo core maintainer about this and he said,
that in his opinion being lenient towards such things
is good, because it opens options, but he does not
want to close the doors for people who do not want this, hence
the various possibilities to trigger the components)
Having such a passthrough in the input fields, div and the textara
would enable most dojo components out of the box, without scripting
(although div would break the jsf form submit)
Werner
Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
> Aha!
>
> Thanks Werner,
>
> The key was to stick the javascript after the input (and remove the
> style). I'd tried a large permutation of these things, but it didn't
> occur to me that the javascript needed to be after the input area.
>
> Here's what I ended up doing (in facelets).
>
> Put this in the <head> tags:
>
> <sandbox:dojoInitializer require="dojo.widget.Editor"/>
>
> Put this in the form:
>
> <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
> required="#{true}"
> value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
>
> <script type="text/javascript">
> // <![CDATA[
> var editorArgs = {
> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
> };
> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
> dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
> // ]]>
> </script>
>
> I decided to stick with the standard jsf inputAreaText component and
> use the fully-qualified path to the component (form-id : component-id)
> rather than using forceid.
>
> I agree that <s:richEdit id="editor"/> would be better. It seems to
> me that we could make such a tag emit the same code as I just created
> manually, at least in the short term.
>
> I was considering altering t:inputTextArea to support a passthrough
> "items" attribute as a temporary workaround, but it would have been
> quite a hack.
>
> I'll go ahead and update the wiki.
>
> On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Hi Mike I can only give pseudo code here,
>> first of all, in an actual JSF page I would like to see
>> code like this
>>
>> <s:richEdit id="editor"/>
>>
>> but we cannot have that for now:
>>
>> if you want to see the rich editor in action in a jsf page and if you
>> want to pass the parameter as well, use a normal textArea
>> (not the div because the div is not triggered on submit)
>>
>> <t:inputTextarea id="myId" forceId="true" />
>>
>> and then set a javascript in a verbatim area with following entries
>> (we forget the internal dojo id for now, since you wont need it here)
>> <f:verbatim>
>> <script type="text/javascript">
>> var editorArgs = {
>> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
>> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
>> };
>> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
>> dojo.byId("myId"));
>>
>> </script>
>>
>> </f:verbatim>
>>
>>
>> that should work more or less
>>
>> what happens here
>>
>> first you define a text area in a form, so that we trigger the normal
>> jsf submits etc...
>>
>> secondly dojo now alters the text area into a full blown rich text editor
>> via the fromScript function (the first argument specifies the widget
>> the text area has to be altered to, the second one the arguments passed
>> down to the area, the third argument is the id of the original control)
>>
>> now if you submit the altered control recongnizes that passes
>> the content into the original control (which still is lingering there
>> hidden) and the cycle goes through as expected.
>>
>> the reason why this code does not give you a second editor while
>> your code does is following line:
>>
>> > <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
>> > styleClass="dojo-Editor"
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> what happens here is that you explicetly pass the
>> styleClass="dojo-Editor" which in itself also creates the dojo editor
>> you also trigger the editor creation script, hence you create
>> two editors from one single control (both internally with different ids)
>>
>> you have two options, either remove the javascript for the component
>> creation, or remove the styleClass with the dojo-Editor style.
>> But having both results in two editors.
>>
>> So basically for most if not every component you have three ways
>> to create it dynamically
>> a) use the html validation breaking dojo tags
>> b) use a script to alter an existing control dynamically
>> c) use a special styleclass
>>
>> but combining 2 of these options results in a mess ;-)
>>
>>
>> I hope that sums it up (never mind all this dynamic stuff, if you
>> are not used to dynamic languages, they can be altered and adjusted
>> into the core, the same goes for the data structures like for instance
>> the dom tree)
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
>>> On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>> But I think you get the idea....
>>> You're giving me far too much credit. I don't understand the
>>> difference between what you said here and earlier :)
>>>
>>> How does this look on an actual JSF page?
>>>
>>> I tried sticking this in the <head> tags
>>>
>>> <script type="text/javascript">
>>> // <![CDATA[
>>> var editorArgs = {
>>> id:"theinternaldojoid",
>>> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
>>> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
>>> };
>>> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
>>> dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
>>> // ]]>
>>> </script>
>>>
>>> And this on my form:
>>>
>>> <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
>>> styleClass="dojo-Editor"
>>> required="#{true}"
>>> value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
>>>
>>> but I keep ending up with two separate input editors -- one that looks
>>> how I want it, but with no binding to a JSF component, and one that is
>>> decorated wrong, but is bound to the JSF component.
>>>
>>> If you can explain it to me in terms a non-javascript person can
>>> understand, I can then update either the wiki and/or the dojo example
>>> so others like myself can use it.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Aha!
Thanks Werner,
The key was to stick the javascript after the input (and remove the
style). I'd tried a large permutation of these things, but it didn't
occur to me that the javascript needed to be after the input area.
Here's what I ended up doing (in facelets).
Put this in the <head> tags:
<sandbox:dojoInitializer require="dojo.widget.Editor"/>
Put this in the form:
<h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
required="#{true}"
value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
<script type="text/javascript">
// <![CDATA[
var editorArgs = {
items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
"listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
};
var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
// ]]>
</script>
I decided to stick with the standard jsf inputAreaText component and
use the fully-qualified path to the component (form-id : component-id)
rather than using forceid.
I agree that <s:richEdit id="editor"/> would be better. It seems to
me that we could make such a tag emit the same code as I just created
manually, at least in the short term.
I was considering altering t:inputTextArea to support a passthrough
"items" attribute as a temporary workaround, but it would have been
quite a hack.
I'll go ahead and update the wiki.
On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Hi Mike I can only give pseudo code here,
> first of all, in an actual JSF page I would like to see
> code like this
>
> <s:richEdit id="editor"/>
>
> but we cannot have that for now:
>
> if you want to see the rich editor in action in a jsf page and if you
> want to pass the parameter as well, use a normal textArea
> (not the div because the div is not triggered on submit)
>
> <t:inputTextarea id="myId" forceId="true" />
>
> and then set a javascript in a verbatim area with following entries
> (we forget the internal dojo id for now, since you wont need it here)
> <f:verbatim>
> <script type="text/javascript">
> var editorArgs = {
> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
> };
> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
> dojo.byId("myId"));
>
> </script>
>
> </f:verbatim>
>
>
> that should work more or less
>
> what happens here
>
> first you define a text area in a form, so that we trigger the normal
> jsf submits etc...
>
> secondly dojo now alters the text area into a full blown rich text editor
> via the fromScript function (the first argument specifies the widget
> the text area has to be altered to, the second one the arguments passed
> down to the area, the third argument is the id of the original control)
>
> now if you submit the altered control recongnizes that passes
> the content into the original control (which still is lingering there
> hidden) and the cycle goes through as expected.
>
> the reason why this code does not give you a second editor while
> your code does is following line:
>
> > <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
> > styleClass="dojo-Editor"
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> what happens here is that you explicetly pass the
> styleClass="dojo-Editor" which in itself also creates the dojo editor
> you also trigger the editor creation script, hence you create
> two editors from one single control (both internally with different ids)
>
> you have two options, either remove the javascript for the component
> creation, or remove the styleClass with the dojo-Editor style.
> But having both results in two editors.
>
> So basically for most if not every component you have three ways
> to create it dynamically
> a) use the html validation breaking dojo tags
> b) use a script to alter an existing control dynamically
> c) use a special styleclass
>
> but combining 2 of these options results in a mess ;-)
>
>
> I hope that sums it up (never mind all this dynamic stuff, if you
> are not used to dynamic languages, they can be altered and adjusted
> into the core, the same goes for the data structures like for instance
> the dom tree)
>
>
>
> Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
> > On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >> But I think you get the idea....
> >
> > You're giving me far too much credit. I don't understand the
> > difference between what you said here and earlier :)
> >
> > How does this look on an actual JSF page?
> >
> > I tried sticking this in the <head> tags
> >
> > <script type="text/javascript">
> > // <![CDATA[
> > var editorArgs = {
> > id:"theinternaldojoid",
> > items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
> > "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
> > };
> > var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
> > dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
> > // ]]>
> > </script>
> >
> > And this on my form:
> >
> > <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
> > styleClass="dojo-Editor"
> > required="#{true}"
> > value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
> >
> > but I keep ending up with two separate input editors -- one that looks
> > how I want it, but with no binding to a JSF component, and one that is
> > decorated wrong, but is bound to the JSF component.
> >
> > If you can explain it to me in terms a non-javascript person can
> > understand, I can then update either the wiki and/or the dojo example
> > so others like myself can use it.
> >
> > :-)
> >
>
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Hi Mike I can only give pseudo code here,
first of all, in an actual JSF page I would like to see
code like this
<s:richEdit id="editor"/>
but we cannot have that for now:
if you want to see the rich editor in action in a jsf page and if you
want to pass the parameter as well, use a normal textArea
(not the div because the div is not triggered on submit)
<t:inputTextarea id="myId" forceId="true" />
and then set a javascript in a verbatim area with following entries
(we forget the internal dojo id for now, since you wont need it here)
<f:verbatim>
<script type="text/javascript">
var editorArgs = {
items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
"listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
};
var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
dojo.byId("myId"));
</script>
</f:verbatim>
that should work more or less
what happens here
first you define a text area in a form, so that we trigger the normal
jsf submits etc...
secondly dojo now alters the text area into a full blown rich text editor
via the fromScript function (the first argument specifies the widget
the text area has to be altered to, the second one the arguments passed
down to the area, the third argument is the id of the original control)
now if you submit the altered control recongnizes that passes
the content into the original control (which still is lingering there
hidden) and the cycle goes through as expected.
the reason why this code does not give you a second editor while
your code does is following line:
> <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
> styleClass="dojo-Editor"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what happens here is that you explicetly pass the
styleClass="dojo-Editor" which in itself also creates the dojo editor
you also trigger the editor creation script, hence you create
two editors from one single control (both internally with different ids)
you have two options, either remove the javascript for the component
creation, or remove the styleClass with the dojo-Editor style.
But having both results in two editors.
So basically for most if not every component you have three ways
to create it dynamically
a) use the html validation breaking dojo tags
b) use a script to alter an existing control dynamically
c) use a special styleclass
but combining 2 of these options results in a mess ;-)
I hope that sums it up (never mind all this dynamic stuff, if you
are not used to dynamic languages, they can be altered and adjusted
into the core, the same goes for the data structures like for instance
the dom tree)
Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
> On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> But I think you get the idea....
>
> You're giving me far too much credit. I don't understand the
> difference between what you said here and earlier :)
>
> How does this look on an actual JSF page?
>
> I tried sticking this in the <head> tags
>
> <script type="text/javascript">
> // <![CDATA[
> var editorArgs = {
> id:"theinternaldojoid",
> items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
> "listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
> };
> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
> dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
> // ]]>
> </script>
>
> And this on my form:
>
> <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
> styleClass="dojo-Editor"
> required="#{true}"
> value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
>
> but I keep ending up with two separate input editors -- one that looks
> how I want it, but with no binding to a JSF component, and one that is
> decorated wrong, but is bound to the JSF component.
>
> If you can explain it to me in terms a non-javascript person can
> understand, I can then update either the wiki and/or the dojo example
> so others like myself can use it.
>
> :-)
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
On 2/17/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> But I think you get the idea....
You're giving me far too much credit. I don't understand the
difference between what you said here and earlier :)
How does this look on an actual JSF page?
I tried sticking this in the <head> tags
<script type="text/javascript">
// <![CDATA[
var editorArgs = {
id:"theinternaldojoid",
items: ["textGroup", "blockGroup", "justifyGroup", "colorGroup",
"listGroup", "indentGroup", "linkGroup"]
};
var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
dojo.byId("form:contentHtmlEditArea"));
// ]]>
</script>
And this on my form:
<h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
styleClass="dojo-Editor"
required="#{true}"
value="#{createSimpleAnnouncementPage.text}"/>
but I keep ending up with two separate input editors -- one that looks
how I want it, but with no binding to a JSF component, and one that is
decorated wrong, but is bound to the JSF component.
If you can explain it to me in terms a non-javascript person can
understand, I can then update either the wiki and/or the dojo example
so others like myself can use it.
:-)
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
well there are usually 2-3 ways in dojo as far as I could find out
how to pass the dojo params.
First of all the way you described it, but that breaks (x)html validation.
Except for a few components there usually is another way:
here is an excerpt from the docs:
http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/rich_text.html
var editorArgs = {
items: ["bold", "italic", "underline", "strikethrough"]
};
var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
dojo.byId("contentNode"));
I found out that this breaks the getWidgetFromId method, unless
you also specify an id in the args
a valid statement with an identifyable id would look like that:
the origianl contentNode would look like
<input type="textArea" id="contentNode"/>
or
<div type="textArea" id="contentNode"/>
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
var editorArgs = {
id:"theinternaldojoid",
items: ["bold", "italic", "underline", "strikethrough"]
};
var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
dojo.byId("contentNode"));
//-->
</script>
or something very similar to it (I worked originally around the problem
by keepding the editor reference.
But I think you get the idea....
This works with most components, but some do not work (the
debug console for instance, but that one is important only
for development, so I did not really care when I implemented
the binding)
Werner
Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
> Werner,
>
> Can you provide an example of how to specify the "items"
> line for those of us who are javascript-ignorant?
>
> I'd really like to remove the "save/cancel" buttons since these don't
> work well with JSF and just confuse the end-user.
>
> I was hoping that facelets would just pass them through by default,
> but it doesn't work that way in facelets either.
>
> <h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
> styleClass="dojo-Editor"
> items="textGroup;blockGroup;justifyGroup;colorGroup;listGroup;indentGroup;linkGroup"
> required="#{true}"
> value="#{text}"/>
>
>
>
> On 2/13/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> The reason, Dojo uses some optional extra attributes on taglevel which
>> you cannot provide
>> in plain jsf. What would be needed would be some kind of
>> additionalString or someting attribute to provide those.
>>
>> As for component development not to break the valid html/xhtml I would
>> recommend to go the programmatic control generation upon existing tags:
>> var editorArgs = {
>> items: ["bold", "italic", "underline", "strikethrough"]
>> };
>> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
>> dojo.byId("contentNode"));
>>
>> as an example
>>
>> which would work on any normal div or textArea and still would be valid
>> html.
>>
>> Going this route:
>>
>> <textarea dojoType="Editor" name="editorContent"
>> items="bold;italic;underline;strikethrough;">
>> some content
>> </textarea>
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Werner,
Can you provide an example of how to specify the "items"
line for those of us who are javascript-ignorant?
I'd really like to remove the "save/cancel" buttons since these don't
work well with JSF and just confuse the end-user.
I was hoping that facelets would just pass them through by default,
but it doesn't work that way in facelets either.
<h:inputTextarea id="contentHtmlEditArea"
styleClass="dojo-Editor"
items="textGroup;blockGroup;justifyGroup;colorGroup;listGroup;indentGroup;linkGroup"
required="#{true}"
value="#{text}"/>
On 2/13/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> The reason, Dojo uses some optional extra attributes on taglevel which
> you cannot provide
> in plain jsf. What would be needed would be some kind of
> additionalString or someting attribute to provide those.
>
> As for component development not to break the valid html/xhtml I would
> recommend to go the programmatic control generation upon existing tags:
> var editorArgs = {
> items: ["bold", "italic", "underline", "strikethrough"]
> };
> var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
> dojo.byId("contentNode"));
>
> as an example
>
> which would work on any normal div or textArea and still would be valid
> html.
>
> Going this route:
>
> <textarea dojoType="Editor" name="editorContent"
> items="bold;italic;underline;strikethrough;">
> some content
> </textarea>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>> Btw. the Sandbox demo should not become
>> a best practice, this is just a kickstart for component devs,
>
> Right, but it shows how you can *integrate* dojo to your pofa (plain
> old faces app ;))
>
> since all you need is the <s:dojoInitializer/> and the rest of the
> page is straight forward faces standard
>
> btw. http://tinyurl.com/cp9jm
>
>> normal users in the future should not care about the dojoInitializer
>> at all, but for now it is the best we have ;-)
>
> sound very promissing ;)
>
You will run into limitations this way.
The reason, Dojo uses some optional extra attributes on taglevel which
you cannot provide
in plain jsf. What would be needed would be some kind of
additionalString or someting attribute to provide those.
As for component development not to break the valid html/xhtml I would
recommend to go the programmatic control generation upon existing tags:
var editorArgs = {
items: ["bold", "italic", "underline", "strikethrough"]
};
var editor = dojo.widget.fromScript("Editor", editorArgs,
dojo.byId("contentNode"));
as an example
which would work on any normal div or textArea and still would be valid
html.
Going this route:
<textarea dojoType="Editor" name="editorContent"
items="bold;italic;underline;strikethrough;">
some content
</textarea>
would work but would not be possible in pure jsf due to the problem that
the dojoType and the other attributes cannot be provided by the person
who does the page layouting.
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com>.
> Btw. the Sandbox demo should not become
> a best practice, this is just a kickstart for component devs,
Right, but it shows how you can *integrate* dojo to your pofa (plain
old faces app ;))
since all you need is the <s:dojoInitializer/> and the rest of the
page is straight forward faces standard
btw. http://tinyurl.com/cp9jm
> normal users in the future should not care about the dojoInitializer
> at all, but for now it is the best we have ;-)
sound very promissing ;)
-Matthias
> Werner
>
>
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> > he he.
> >
> > he was faster than I ;)
> > I planed to blog the *sandbox demo* (screens and code)
> > I modified it on my own to have a backing bean behind the formular.
> > Really works nice!
> >
> > On 2/12/06, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> +1 on blogging on myfaces and dojo ;)
> >>
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
50674 Köln
http://www.wessendorf.net
mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Ok I just sent Alex the news...
Btw. the Sandbox demo should not become
a best practice, this is just a kickstart for component devs,
normal users in the future should not care about the dojoInitializer
at all, but for now it is the best we have ;-)
Werner
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> he he.
>
> he was faster than I ;)
> I planed to blog the *sandbox demo* (screens and code)
> I modified it on my own to have a backing bean behind the formular.
> Really works nice!
>
> On 2/12/06, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 on blogging on myfaces and dojo ;)
>>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com>.
he he.
he was faster than I ;)
I planed to blog the *sandbox demo* (screens and code)
I modified it on my own to have a backing bean behind the formular.
Really works nice!
On 2/12/06, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on blogging on myfaces and dojo ;)
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 2/11/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > Btw. just to add something to this discussion, Alex Russel the core
> > maintainer of Dojo asked me for permission to blog that we now use Dojo
> > in Myfaces.
> > If no one objects I would like to give him the permission
> > so that he can spread the news a little bit ;-)
> > As it is very likely that we wont pull the plug on Dojo.
> >
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> > > Ok, sounds sensible. Let's wait for the next release then, so we have
> > > the time to test all this thoroughtly,
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > > On 2/11/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > >> Hi Bruno, as we talked things over already over gtalk.
> > >>
> > >> I think we should wait a few more weeks, and should
> > >> make a push for MyFaces 1.1.3.
> > >>
> > >> The reason, there is a foundation there, but we do not have any real
> > >> components yet (which I would love to showcase)
> > >>
> > >> (except for the one development component
> > >> which can trigger the dojo system)
> > >>
> > >> If the others have no objection I would rather have those interfaces
> > >> stabilized while we work on 1-2 actual components
> > >> (Bruno does currently, so do I and also Laurie Harper who contacted me a
> > >> while ago) so that we see if this foundation
> > >> can hold in actual usage.
> > >>
> > >> As for the interfaces please use them and do not try to trigger Dojo
> > >> directly. The main reason for this is, that some big companies as it
> > >> seems move towards dojo as well, so we might have do do an adjustment of
> > >> how to initialize all that stuff in future releases (maybe weblets or
> > >> something else) to avoide double imports currently I only root into our
> > >> own resource loader and let dojo handle the rest.
> > >>
> > >> If you need an extension please extend those interfaces and do not hack
> > >> your own stuff.
> > >>
> > >> So -1 for pushing it into tomahawk yet, simply due to the fact that I
> > >> want to have everything seen in a real useage and want to know if I have
> > >> to do some adjustments on the foundation I laid.
> > >> But feel free to hack away in the sandbox, and we will opt a move
> > >> towards tomahawk for 1.1.3.
> > >>
> > >> Werner
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> > >>> Hi devs,
> > >>>
> > >>> I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > >>> this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > >>> is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > >>> the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Bruno
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
50674 Köln
http://www.wessendorf.net
mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com>.
I think its amusing that he asked permission. He obviously doesn't read the
Bile Blog.
On 2/11/06, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 on blogging on myfaces and dojo ;)
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 2/11/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > Btw. just to add something to this discussion, Alex Russel the core
> > maintainer of Dojo asked me for permission to blog that we now use Dojo
> > in Myfaces.
> > If no one objects I would like to give him the permission
> > so that he can spread the news a little bit ;-)
> > As it is very likely that we wont pull the plug on Dojo.
> >
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> > > Ok, sounds sensible. Let's wait for the next release then, so we have
> > > the time to test all this thoroughtly,
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > > On 2/11/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > >> Hi Bruno, as we talked things over already over gtalk.
> > >>
> > >> I think we should wait a few more weeks, and should
> > >> make a push for MyFaces 1.1.3.
> > >>
> > >> The reason, there is a foundation there, but we do not have any real
> > >> components yet (which I would love to showcase)
> > >>
> > >> (except for the one development component
> > >> which can trigger the dojo system)
> > >>
> > >> If the others have no objection I would rather have those interfaces
> > >> stabilized while we work on 1-2 actual components
> > >> (Bruno does currently, so do I and also Laurie Harper who contacted
> me a
> > >> while ago) so that we see if this foundation
> > >> can hold in actual usage.
> > >>
> > >> As for the interfaces please use them and do not try to trigger Dojo
> > >> directly. The main reason for this is, that some big companies as it
> > >> seems move towards dojo as well, so we might have do do an adjustment
> of
> > >> how to initialize all that stuff in future releases (maybe weblets or
> > >> something else) to avoide double imports currently I only root into
> our
> > >> own resource loader and let dojo handle the rest.
> > >>
> > >> If you need an extension please extend those interfaces and do not
> hack
> > >> your own stuff.
> > >>
> > >> So -1 for pushing it into tomahawk yet, simply due to the fact that I
> > >> want to have everything seen in a real useage and want to know if I
> have
> > >> to do some adjustments on the foundation I laid.
> > >> But feel free to hack away in the sandbox, and we will opt a move
> > >> towards tomahawk for 1.1.3.
> > >>
> > >> Werner
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> > >>> Hi devs,
> > >>>
> > >>> I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > >>> this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > >>> is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think
> that
> > >>> the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Bruno
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Grant Smith
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 on blogging on myfaces and dojo ;)
regards,
Martin
On 2/11/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Btw. just to add something to this discussion, Alex Russel the core
> maintainer of Dojo asked me for permission to blog that we now use Dojo
> in Myfaces.
> If no one objects I would like to give him the permission
> so that he can spread the news a little bit ;-)
> As it is very likely that we wont pull the plug on Dojo.
>
>
> Werner
>
>
>
> Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> > Ok, sounds sensible. Let's wait for the next release then, so we have
> > the time to test all this thoroughtly,
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > On 2/11/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >> Hi Bruno, as we talked things over already over gtalk.
> >>
> >> I think we should wait a few more weeks, and should
> >> make a push for MyFaces 1.1.3.
> >>
> >> The reason, there is a foundation there, but we do not have any real
> >> components yet (which I would love to showcase)
> >>
> >> (except for the one development component
> >> which can trigger the dojo system)
> >>
> >> If the others have no objection I would rather have those interfaces
> >> stabilized while we work on 1-2 actual components
> >> (Bruno does currently, so do I and also Laurie Harper who contacted me a
> >> while ago) so that we see if this foundation
> >> can hold in actual usage.
> >>
> >> As for the interfaces please use them and do not try to trigger Dojo
> >> directly. The main reason for this is, that some big companies as it
> >> seems move towards dojo as well, so we might have do do an adjustment of
> >> how to initialize all that stuff in future releases (maybe weblets or
> >> something else) to avoide double imports currently I only root into our
> >> own resource loader and let dojo handle the rest.
> >>
> >> If you need an extension please extend those interfaces and do not hack
> >> your own stuff.
> >>
> >> So -1 for pushing it into tomahawk yet, simply due to the fact that I
> >> want to have everything seen in a real useage and want to know if I have
> >> to do some adjustments on the foundation I laid.
> >> But feel free to hack away in the sandbox, and we will opt a move
> >> towards tomahawk for 1.1.3.
> >>
> >> Werner
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> >>> Hi devs,
> >>>
> >>> I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> >>> this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> >>> is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> >>> the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Bruno
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Btw. just to add something to this discussion, Alex Russel the core
maintainer of Dojo asked me for permission to blog that we now use Dojo
in Myfaces.
If no one objects I would like to give him the permission
so that he can spread the news a little bit ;-)
As it is very likely that we wont pull the plug on Dojo.
Werner
Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> Ok, sounds sensible. Let's wait for the next release then, so we have
> the time to test all this thoroughtly,
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruno
>
> On 2/11/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Hi Bruno, as we talked things over already over gtalk.
>>
>> I think we should wait a few more weeks, and should
>> make a push for MyFaces 1.1.3.
>>
>> The reason, there is a foundation there, but we do not have any real
>> components yet (which I would love to showcase)
>>
>> (except for the one development component
>> which can trigger the dojo system)
>>
>> If the others have no objection I would rather have those interfaces
>> stabilized while we work on 1-2 actual components
>> (Bruno does currently, so do I and also Laurie Harper who contacted me a
>> while ago) so that we see if this foundation
>> can hold in actual usage.
>>
>> As for the interfaces please use them and do not try to trigger Dojo
>> directly. The main reason for this is, that some big companies as it
>> seems move towards dojo as well, so we might have do do an adjustment of
>> how to initialize all that stuff in future releases (maybe weblets or
>> something else) to avoide double imports currently I only root into our
>> own resource loader and let dojo handle the rest.
>>
>> If you need an extension please extend those interfaces and do not hack
>> your own stuff.
>>
>> So -1 for pushing it into tomahawk yet, simply due to the fact that I
>> want to have everything seen in a real useage and want to know if I have
>> to do some adjustments on the foundation I laid.
>> But feel free to hack away in the sandbox, and we will opt a move
>> towards tomahawk for 1.1.3.
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruno Aranda schrieb:
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
>>> this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
>>> is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
>>> the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
Ok, sounds sensible. Let's wait for the next release then, so we have
the time to test all this thoroughtly,
Regards,
Bruno
On 2/11/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Hi Bruno, as we talked things over already over gtalk.
>
> I think we should wait a few more weeks, and should
> make a push for MyFaces 1.1.3.
>
> The reason, there is a foundation there, but we do not have any real
> components yet (which I would love to showcase)
>
> (except for the one development component
> which can trigger the dojo system)
>
> If the others have no objection I would rather have those interfaces
> stabilized while we work on 1-2 actual components
> (Bruno does currently, so do I and also Laurie Harper who contacted me a
> while ago) so that we see if this foundation
> can hold in actual usage.
>
> As for the interfaces please use them and do not try to trigger Dojo
> directly. The main reason for this is, that some big companies as it
> seems move towards dojo as well, so we might have do do an adjustment of
> how to initialize all that stuff in future releases (maybe weblets or
> something else) to avoide double imports currently I only root into our
> own resource loader and let dojo handle the rest.
>
> If you need an extension please extend those interfaces and do not hack
> your own stuff.
>
> So -1 for pushing it into tomahawk yet, simply due to the fact that I
> want to have everything seen in a real useage and want to know if I have
> to do some adjustments on the foundation I laid.
> But feel free to hack away in the sandbox, and we will opt a move
> towards tomahawk for 1.1.3.
>
> Werner
>
>
>
> Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> > this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> > is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> > the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
>
>
Re: Dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Hi Bruno, as we talked things over already over gtalk.
I think we should wait a few more weeks, and should
make a push for MyFaces 1.1.3.
The reason, there is a foundation there, but we do not have any real
components yet (which I would love to showcase)
(except for the one development component
which can trigger the dojo system)
If the others have no objection I would rather have those interfaces
stabilized while we work on 1-2 actual components
(Bruno does currently, so do I and also Laurie Harper who contacted me a
while ago) so that we see if this foundation
can hold in actual usage.
As for the interfaces please use them and do not try to trigger Dojo
directly. The main reason for this is, that some big companies as it
seems move towards dojo as well, so we might have do do an adjustment of
how to initialize all that stuff in future releases (maybe weblets or
something else) to avoide double imports currently I only root into our
own resource loader and let dojo handle the rest.
If you need an extension please extend those interfaces and do not hack
your own stuff.
So -1 for pushing it into tomahawk yet, simply due to the fact that I
want to have everything seen in a real useage and want to know if I have
to do some adjustments on the foundation I laid.
But feel free to hack away in the sandbox, and we will opt a move
towards tomahawk for 1.1.3.
Werner
Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> Hi devs,
>
> I want to promote the dojo stuff from sandbox to tomahawk as I need
> this on a project I am working on. Do we have to vote on this? As it
> is not a component strictly speaking... BTW, Werner, do you think that
> the dojo code is stable enough to move it to tomahawk?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruno
>