Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
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.
:) - when christmas is coming, you should have a very merry one...
bless you jesse...
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
