I think with all of the writing that's been done on this subject here someone could have probably already written a nice validation page by now ;)
Sorry...I couldn't help myself. I intend to write a new validation section tonight, so I don't think there's any reason to hold off on a release. jesse On 12/12/05, Jeff Lubetkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To Leonardo's points: > > 1) Exactly. The validation documentation doesn't need a few bug fixes. > It needs a complete overhaul. The Users Guide page on validation isn't > just incomplete, what's there is actually wrong and misleading. The > documentation for TextField still says to use ValidField for validation, > while the ValidField docs say it's deprecated! For some reason I > expected someone to have it on their task list to overhaul this whole > thing, but I'm new to Open Source dev and perhaps I didn't fully > understand how these things get done. (Side note: Erik seems to suggest > that maybe it's OK if the docs are incomplete because most of the users > would be coming over from Tap3 anyways. I would suggest that's exactly > WHY this is such a big issue. The new validation system is COMPLETELY > DIFFERENT than the old one, and because the docs are so messed up it's > easy to go down the wrong path if you think you know what you're > doing...) > > 2) Validation is the last thing that I think requires fixing in the docs > before release. There are a few other bugs, and some advanced stuff I'd > like to see doc'ed better (and my write up myself, if my work life ever > calms down), but I agree that those can happen post release. > > jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:27 PM > To: Tapestry development > Subject: Re: [VOTE] 4.0 final release > > 1) This is no minor documentation typo that needs to be fixed. Whole > areas of Tapestry development are not documented, and some are > confusing. How would expect Tap4 getting adopted more pervasively if the > > docs miss some important areas? > > 2) Delaying the release until docs are done ensures that those docs gets > > written. If not, well, it may happen like in Tapestry 3, with 2 user > guides, both incomplete... for a long time. Now I recall that was one of > > my main reasons for not adopting Tap 3 when I tested (along with the > .page files). > > -- > Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi > DTQ Software > > > Erik Hatcher wrote: > > Jeff - no offense intended. My point is that open source is, > > especially at ASF, about "scratching itches". Tapestry has some of > > the best documentation of any open source framework out there, along > > with a complete running example application or two. Howard himself > > has done a fantastic job at keeping the documentation at that level. > > Most committers for open source projects simply don't have that itch > > to scratch and are not as keen to know what general users would need > > in terms of documentation. It is helpful if the community chips in > > for this kind of thing. > > > > I'm in the "ship early, and often" category. Documentation can > > evolve, as well as the code itself. Tap4 needs a final release to > > start getting adopted more pervasively. I wouldn't want to hold up a > > release for some missing documentation. Many of the folks that would > > grab it right away are already familiar with Tap3, I suspect. > > > > Erik > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
