myfaces-example-simple

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

What do you all think about moving the myfaces-example-simple project
to tomahawk-sandbox-examples, and creating a new
myfaces-example-simple project?

The examples in the current project aren't "simple" (as in basic JSF) 
nor will they run without tomahawk.   I'm sure the current name is a
hold-over from earlier times.

myfaces-example-simple should contain boring examples of standard jsf
components, and we should have a tomahawk example project.   I
wouldn't be adverse to using tomahawk-sandbox-examples for both
tomahawk and sandbox, though.

-Mike

Re: myfaces-example-simple

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

On 2/24/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Well how about a number of small projects showing off various aspects
> many people probably would love to have a simple crud example with db
> connectivity on their hands

Sounds good, but not my goal.   I want to provide simple usage
examples for each component.   The goal is to prove each one works at
any given point rather than to teach JSF.   It also serves as a
"what's there" catalog.


On 2/24/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by the second part of the suggestion.  An
> example of each component on its own page .... that's basically what
> the simple examples do now right?  Maybe you could elaborate?

It's what they start to do.   But there are missing components, and
there are pages that have a bunch of different components.   I want to
clean it up so it's more obvious.   I also think the examples need to
be moved to a tomahawk project since that's what they depend on.   And
I want to make it so it's easier to provide multiple examples using
different view handlers (jsp, jspx, facelets, clay as a start,
although someone else will have to implement clay).


On 2/24/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Facelet examples would be interesting.  I think this would still be
> part of the tomahawk project though since most people would be curious
> to know how to use facelets with tomahawk specifically.  I do agree
> that this should be its own example project - just inside tomahawk.
> So basically add another project to blank, simple, tiles, etc. called
> facelets.

It's the "basically add" using maven where I'm lacking :)   This is
where I'm going to need help.   But cleaning up the examples probably
should preceed adding facelet examples.

I think there may be licensing issues and possibly build-time issues
with facelets.   Facelets is CDDL.   So is el-api, and el-ri that it
depends on.   Facelets also has dependencies on JSF 1.2 RI and JSP 2. 
 The ultimate goal is to provide Tomahawk facelet tag handlers for
those few components that need it (tree2, updateActionListener,
anything with a method binding attribute) so there's a few unknowns
here.  We might end up needing a facelets-api.jar file to remove
compile-time dependencies.

Re: myfaces-example-simple

[Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>]

Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
> What do you all think about moving the myfaces-example-simple project
> to tomahawk-sandbox-examples, and creating a new
> myfaces-example-simple project?
> 
> The examples in the current project aren't "simple" (as in basic JSF) 
> nor will they run without tomahawk.   I'm sure the current name is a
> hold-over from earlier times.
> 
> myfaces-example-simple should contain boring examples of standard jsf
> components, and we should have a tomahawk example project.   I
> wouldn't be adverse to using tomahawk-sandbox-examples for both
> tomahawk and sandbox, though.
> 
> -Mike
> 
Well how about a number of small projects showing off various aspects
many people probably would love to have a simple crud example with db 
connectivity on their hands, now that soon an opensource apache licensed
  version of kodo ejb3 will be available we should think along the lines 
of something like it.

Re: myfaces-example-simple

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

Facelet examples would be interesting.  I think this would still be
part of the tomahawk project though since most people would be curious
to know how to use facelets with tomahawk specifically.  I do agree
that this should be its own example project - just inside tomahawk. 
So basically add another project to blank, simple, tiles, etc. called
facelets.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second part of the suggestion.  An
example of each component on its own page .... that's basically what
the simple examples do now right?  Maybe you could elaborate?

Sean

On 2/24/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I forgot to mention that one of my short-term goals is to clean up the
> examples.   I'd like to provide some jspx and facelet examples
> (probably all three along side each other).  I'd also like to see a
> "simple" example of each component on its own page (sort of visual
> equivalent of the "usage" section) both as an example and so we can
> quickly test bug reports on components.
>

Re: myfaces-example-simple

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

I forgot to mention that one of my short-term goals is to clean up the
examples.   I'd like to provide some jspx and facelet examples
(probably all three along side each other).  I'd also like to see a
"simple" example of each component on its own page (sort of visual
equivalent of the "usage" section) both as an example and so we can
quickly test bug reports on components.

Re: myfaces-example-simple

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

Yes but its more stuff to merge.  Manfred is refactoring all of
tomahawk as we speak.  The less changes on the trunk the less
confusion when we merge back down.

Sean

On 2/24/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok there are some good ideas here but I have a request.  Can we wait
> > until the next core and tomahawk releases before diving into this?  We
> > are still drifting along week after week without a release and I'd
> > like us to focus on getting the releases out.  With all of the
> > branching and refactoring (and eventual merging) adding a new
> > subproject right now is not something I am looking forward to.
>
> Sean, other than dealing with facelet-specific stuff (which is more of
> a medium-range task for me), I don't think there's any subprojects
> required.   I can just keep working in myfaces-example-simple and
> tomahawk-sandbox-examples.  Shouldn't impact the release schedule.
>

Re: myfaces-example-simple

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

On 2/24/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok there are some good ideas here but I have a request.  Can we wait
> until the next core and tomahawk releases before diving into this?  We
> are still drifting along week after week without a release and I'd
> like us to focus on getting the releases out.  With all of the
> branching and refactoring (and eventual merging) adding a new
> subproject right now is not something I am looking forward to.

Sean, other than dealing with facelet-specific stuff (which is more of
a medium-range task for me), I don't think there's any subprojects
required.   I can just keep working in myfaces-example-simple and
tomahawk-sandbox-examples.  Shouldn't impact the release schedule.

Re: myfaces-example-simple

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

Ok there are some good ideas here but I have a request.  Can we wait
until the next core and tomahawk releases before diving into this?  We
are still drifting along week after week without a release and I'd
like us to focus on getting the releases out.  With all of the
branching and refactoring (and eventual merging) adding a new
subproject right now is not something I am looking forward to.

Sean

On 2/24/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So basically we already have two example projects, one for tomahawk
> > and one for sandbox.
>
> Sean,
>
> I think some of my confusion was caused by the Eclipse project layout.
> When I view the project through Eclipse, I only see
> "myfaces-example-simple" rather than a "tomahawk-example-simple", but
> when I look at the raw directory structure, I see a different
> organization.   So you're right -- there's no need to "create" a
> "tomahawk-example-simple" project.
>

Re: myfaces-example-simple

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

On 2/24/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So basically we already have two example projects, one for tomahawk
> and one for sandbox.

Sean,

I think some of my confusion was caused by the Eclipse project layout.
When I view the project through Eclipse, I only see
"myfaces-example-simple" rather than a "tomahawk-example-simple", but
when I look at the raw directory structure, I see a different
organization.   So you're right -- there's no need to "create" a
"tomahawk-example-simple" project.

Re: myfaces-example-simple

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

I see the need as more for testing and debugging our code than for teaching JSF.
It's also a lot easier for us if, after a user reports a problem, we
can say "please change one of the simple examples to demonstrate your
issue so we can investigate."  I'd rather have the user report "if you
change inputText example 1 to have attribute Z with a value of 
#{oops}, then it causes this result" than to try to figure it out from
a snippet of their project code.

As I said, I'm willing to put in the work on the examples if someone
will do the maven configuration necessary.

On 2/24/06, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do we need to provide regular JSF examples?  I'm leaning -1 on
> this because there are plenty of websites out there that show you how
> to use JSF.  I think the current tomahawk simple examples adequately
> demonstrate how to configure the MyFaces implementation (in addition
> to our docs.)
>
> So basically we already have two example projects, one for tomahawk
> and one for sandbox.  I don't think we need to demonstrate JSF in
> general.
>
> Sean
>
> On 2/24/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What do you all think about moving the myfaces-example-simple project
> > to tomahawk-sandbox-examples, and creating a new
> > myfaces-example-simple project?
> >
> > The examples in the current project aren't "simple" (as in basic JSF)
> > nor will they run without tomahawk.   I'm sure the current name is a
> > hold-over from earlier times.
> >
> > myfaces-example-simple should contain boring examples of standard jsf
> > components, and we should have a tomahawk example project.   I
> > wouldn't be adverse to using tomahawk-sandbox-examples for both
> > tomahawk and sandbox, though.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
>

Re: myfaces-example-simple

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

Why do we need to provide regular JSF examples?  I'm leaning -1 on
this because there are plenty of websites out there that show you how
to use JSF.  I think the current tomahawk simple examples adequately
demonstrate how to configure the MyFaces implementation (in addition
to our docs.)

So basically we already have two example projects, one for tomahawk
and one for sandbox.  I don't think we need to demonstrate JSF in
general.

Sean

On 2/24/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you all think about moving the myfaces-example-simple project
> to tomahawk-sandbox-examples, and creating a new
> myfaces-example-simple project?
>
> The examples in the current project aren't "simple" (as in basic JSF)
> nor will they run without tomahawk.   I'm sure the current name is a
> hold-over from earlier times.
>
> myfaces-example-simple should contain boring examples of standard jsf
> components, and we should have a tomahawk example project.   I
> wouldn't be adverse to using tomahawk-sandbox-examples for both
> tomahawk and sandbox, though.
>
> -Mike
>