Thanks for the reply. Before some final responses, I'd just like to say that your documentation worked fine for me.
As for the Django docs on the subject I'm surprised - given "Deploying Django with Apache and mod_wsgi is the recommended way to get Django into production" - that mod_wsgi on the Django wiki is poorly-covered (e.g. http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/django_apache_and_mod_wsgi) and barely mentioned in the current version of the Django book (so I added a comment under the subhead 'An Alternative: mod_wsgi' http://www.djangobook.com/en/2.0/chapter12/). Instead of writing it all up yourself, ideally you should just be able to point Django users (like you do for CherryPy) to http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/howto/deployment/modwsgi/ then open tickets for any incomplete info on that page, to encourage the Django community to improve the info. For those who want more, the page already links to your docs (and says nice things about them). My original suggestions were aimed at making what's on the mod_wsgi wiki better than the Django doc page, but that might be the wrong way to go about it, especially since it then becomes your responsibility, when it should be shared with the Django community and developers. > Yes understandabilty is an issue. My bigger complaint about third > party documentation provided with other packages is incompleteness. > Not only is important stuff missing, the whole document is written by > developers who generally have a better base understanding of things. > Thus often not real good for absolute newbies. I think this kind of info is best presented in layers of increasing depth: * minimal newbie info (just get up and running) > * more detail (practical options, typical scenarios/errors) > * full documentation. Developers inevitably take their own knowledge for granted (and gradually forget what it was like starting out), so keeping the newbie in sight (remembering they may be a newbie to this, but knowledgeable in other areas) is a good reality check. > I can't claim my documentation is perfect either as information is all > other place and I don't have the absolute newbie step by step > tutorial. Either way, I do get annoyed though when people will not > even bother to try and read the documentation in the first place and > who instead come to you expecting to be to spoon fed on every minor > point along the way. These people seem to be totally oblivious to the > fact that they are wasting your time. They treat you like a help desk > who is only there to serve them. It's the old RTFM thing - as Django gains ground I'm seeing an increasing number of these kinds of posts on forums when, instead of an answer, all people really need is to be referred to the relevant 'minimal newbie info', but not the full docs. I saw one recent Django question that wanted to know what the word 'regex' meant, but we all have to start somewhere. Way back then, I would have instantly searched for anything I didn't understand (partly to not appear stupid), but not all newbies are considerate, nor do they always realise they're being a pest. It's easy to forget (or actually, be constantly reminded) how steep the learning curve can be at times. > Being a bit of a perfectionist, I really do want to do some better > documentation. Because I expect the tools to probably work well for > me, I was looking at using Pages on a Mac/iPad and pushing drafts up > to the iWork site with people being invited to participate to review > and comment on them. It would thus effectively be a evolving document > over an extended period with possible periodic drops to a public site. I think your docs are fine as they are. You can't be expected to write all the framework-specific info as well, just to point out any inconsistencies/problems/improvements. > The issue with putting all that effort in is how you get some due > compensation. I am not too keen on the idea of publishing a dead tree > version. Plus from what I have seen to date, people in the Python > community are tight arses when it comes to money. When web2py author > put his documentation on scribd and charged people for it, there were > so many complaints. No need for a dead-tree version. Many of us (not just the Python community) are tight arses simply because we're in the same boat i.e. doing stuff because it scratches our own itch, or because we're interested enough to make the effort. My clients have dried up and the Uni where I teach is cutting back, but (looking on the slightly less grey side) that gives me time - but no money - to expand my own knowledge base, make new stuff, and (often) write up how to do it for others. > I should highlight that I am not expecting to be rolling in money... As for that, obviously mod_wsgi isn't a money-spinner, but there's a copy of Souders 'Even Faster Websites' on the way from your wishlist. > > The bit about me being 'a good sub-editor' with 'a passion for making > > instructions as simple as possible' means I'd be happy to start > > editing a draft of that particular page for approval > > I'll definitely get back to you if I go down this path or some better > documentation as describe above. Please do. I'll probably have written up my own 'simple as possible' guide by then, with links to your docs. No need to reply Dave -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en.
