When I read "pages", "site", and do on, I am reminded of the model-view paradigm. I would offer that we focus on _content_ first, and write that content in some general format that tooling can then be used to generate a site, a PDF, Javadoc, whatever.
FWIW, when I worked on the "Java Persistence with Hibernate" book, we wrote everything in XHTML and used tooling called lemma to produce a PDF. This was all in a Maven project, which contained all of the book's Java code, which was compiled and tested like a plain old Java app. The Java source code contains special comments that allowed the tooling to "code slurp" the Java source and combine it with the XHTML to produce the book output. All very cool since the Java examples for the book were as "real" as possible, guaranteed to work, otherwise building the book would fail!. 2c, Gary On Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 2:15 PM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > *TLDR:* Log4j websites & manual will be rewritten. Feedback and support are > more than welcome. > > Starting from February, Christian, Piotr, and I will be working on > reorganizing the Log4j websites (Log4j, Log4j Scala, Log4j Tools, etc.) and > rewriting the Log4j manual. Many implementation details are still yet to be > decided and we look forward to pursuing this big undertaking with the help > of other PMC members and our community. > > I want to kick-off this project using the following agenda: > > 1. An email thread on *website & manual reorganization* – What are the > current shortcomings? Shall we have global support, security, etc. > pages? > Do we need separate pages for distribution details of each project? > Where > shall we place `logging-parent`? What about release instructions? > 2. An email thread on *tooling* – What are the requirements? What are > the available solutions in the market? > 3. A *video call* for resolution – Q&A. Fleshing out a plan forward. > 4. An email sharing the *conclusive plan* in detail. > > If you have general feedback that doesn't fit into aforementioned > reorganization- and tooling-related discussions, please go ahead and share > them in response to this post. >
