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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > +1 > > > > > > 2005/7/8, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > +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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
