On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
thiag...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that Bootstrap should be a separate module, not included in
> tapestry-core automatically, but included in projects generated by the
> Maven archetype.
It isn't a bit "late" to suggest a separate
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:51:14 -0200, trsvax wrote:
I would prefer a drop in module also. I use Bootstrap for new projects
but I have some old ones that do not. If the base components change
their HTML
output this would be a backward compatibility problem for me.
It seems to me the base com
I would prefer a drop in module also. I use Bootstrap for new projects but I
have some old ones that do not. If the base components change their HTML
output this would be a backward compatibility problem for me.
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Idea-for-5-4
I too agree with Josh.
I use bootstrap in all my projects but I would still prefer it to be not in
tapestry-core. I would prefer to have a "drop-in-classpath-and-enjoy-bootstrap"
type of magic :)
regards
Taha
On Dec 15, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Serge Eby wrote:
> Although I am a big fan of Bootstra
Although I am a big fan of Bootstrap, I am in agreement with Josh.
/Serge
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry-developers.221625.n2.nabble.com/Idea-for-5-4-ControlGroup-mixin-tp7578954p7578974.html
Sent from the Tapestry Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I did upgrade from Tapestry's default template to Bootstrap 1 then 2 and it
caused me to rethink the whole way I was doing things.
When I built the Bootstrap 2 module I created one mixin called framework and
used a worker to add it to all components. Then I created a service to
handle the framewo
This is so bootstrap specific. Seems like something that a bootstrap
specific module could implement.
Plus, when bootstrap 3 comes out all of this will be broken. Have you tried
to upgrade from bootstrap 1 -> 2? unlike Tapestry5, compatibility wasn't a
concern :(
Josh
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:10 AM, trsvax wrote:
> or
>
> http://howardlewisship.com
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:43:46 -0200, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:10:14 -0200, trsvax wrote:
I'm all for (optionally) getting rid of boiler plate and I think there
is a way to get rid of even more here. i would suggest putting the
mixin at the form level and
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:10:14 -0200, trsvax wrote:
I'm all for (optionally) getting rid of boiler plate and I think there
is a way to get rid of even more here. i would suggest putting the mixin
at the form level and have it control all the contained elements. For
example
Why couldn't thi
I'm all for (optionally) getting rid of boiler plate and I think there is a
way to get rid of even more here. i would suggest putting the mixin at the
form level and have it control all the contained elements. For example
or
This makes it easy to switch between form types and makes your code
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:50:01 -0200, Jon Williams
wrote:
Seeing as this rather trivial, let's add some controversy to make it more
interesting. We're Engineers right? They are monkeys. Who cares if they
feel good or not? Seriously, don't care. LoLz
I was expecting jokes about the fidelity o
Seeing as this rather trivial, let's add some controversy to make it more
interesting. We're Engineers right? They are monkeys. Who cares if they
feel good or not? Seriously, don't care. LoLz
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Lenny Primak wrote:
> This I just a reminder for the dev folks how imp
This I just a reminder for the dev folks how important designer fidelity is.
Most Devs including me sometimes forget that.
On Dec 13, 2012, at 5:23 PM, "Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo"
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:40:52 -0200, Lenny Primak
> wrote:
>
>> That does not solve the problem of
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:40:52 -0200, Lenny Primak
wrote:
That does not solve the problem of editing the templates in DreamWeaver
and seeing the changes right away, without Tapestry, database, etc.
When I give my templates to the designer, they will just run DW on it,
that's all. It is very im
That does not solve the problem of editing the templates in DreamWeaver
and seeing the changes right away, without Tapestry, database, etc.
When I give my templates to the designer, they will just run DW on it,
that's all. It is very important to be able to keep the DW-friendly syntax n
Tapestry.
Highest fidelity is "gradle runJetty", or some special target just for the
designers.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> So, be glad it is optional!
>
> Some day, I hope to be in a position where that is an issue; where I get
> to work directly with a designer. That has
I use Dreamweaver & Photoshop too. I recommend both of them. I don't want
to end up with FIDELITY ISSUES with this. LOLZ
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Lenny Primak wrote:
> I chose Tapestry for my projects because you can freely share templates
> with
> DreamWeaver and Photoshop-using designe
So, be glad it is optional!
Some day, I hope to be in a position where that is an issue; where I get to
work directly with a designer. That has not been the case for > 10 years.
That's why I love Bootstrap as much as I do ... it gives me 80+% of the
benefit of working with a designer, without the
I chose Tapestry for my projects because you can freely share templates with
DreamWeaver and Photoshop-using designers. They need to be able to see
with the highest fidelity and modify with the highest accuracy.
Sometimes, our more advanced Tapestry-using friends might forget that :)
On Dec 13, 2
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:31:08 -0200, Lenny Primak
wrote:
Nice. I like it. The only issue may be dreamweaver etc. fidelity.
It's optional, so that won't be an issue. I still prefer the type="text" t:type="TextField"/> syntax.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---
Nice. I like it. The only issue may be dreamweaver etc. fidelity.
On Dec 13, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Because of Bootstrap, there's a bit more boilerplate in the template; for
> instance, editting a field may look like:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...
>
> I think we
Because of Bootstrap, there's a bit more boilerplate in the template; for
instance, editting a field may look like:
...
I think we can reduce the boilerplate to:
ControlGroup mixin can generate the extra elements, and emulate the
Label component as well.
I'll be working on
23 matches
Mail list logo
