I think you are have a great point here.Dear ALL (and mainly J1&2 developers), no requests in this mail, just my 2 cents to the "Jetspeed" case.
I have noticed that the nature of the mails circulating in the Jetspeed User List is becoming more & more technical day by day. People asks about classes, interfaces etc., i.e. code, and have to cope with Maven, Ant, builds and so on even to get started (both for J1 and J2).
This is indeed a good fact: the community is alive, good exchange of ideas, collaboration, skilled people etc.
BUT: if you (J developers) really want Jetspeed to become a reference, you should also think of the good guy who wants something that is easy to work with, easy to start, easy to configure etc. Your approach is open to several architecture (DBMS, other tools etc.), but please take a few seconds thinking about the classes of users that could be interested in using Jetspeed.
I DO appreciate your work and effort (I would never be able to do such work!), but I think that an easier approach for e.g. deploy and set up (for dummies, let's say) would be better.
Jetspeed-2 really needs better docs and installers.
Personally, I think it needs to install with little or no configuration.
Jetspeed-2 has so much configuration and possibilities that we sometimes lose sight of the class of user who just needs something working 'out of the box'.
We understand your needs, and we are working towards this goal. Your input is valued and helps us all define the goals of the community
-- David Sean Taylor Bluesunrise Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] [office] +01 707 773-4646 [mobile] +01 707 529 9194
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
