Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Stas Bekman]

> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Stas Bekman wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > So, perl.apache.org is just a VH at apache.org. You have almost no ability
> > to add components to the system, and of course no root access. Installing
> > mod_perl, mysql, modules is absolutely possible technically, but in
> > reality it isn't, because no matter whether you have a root access or not,
> > the resources are limited... I guess other resources to...
> 
> Eh, we can do everything we want to at the apache.org machine. What makes
> you think otherwise?

The answer is simple - it's a public server. It's not dedicated to
modperl.apache.org, and the moment we run heavy mod_perl server + mysql,
other groups sharing the machine will complain about us overusing
machine's resources and we will be asked to move to another machine, so we
are doing that before we are being asked to... I tried to run mod_perl
once on a public server... I don't do it anymore :) 

___
Stas Bekman  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.singlesheaven.com/stas  
Perl,CGI,Apache,Linux,Web,Java,PC at  www.singlesheaven.com/stas/TULARC
www.apache.org  & www.perl.com  == www.modperl.com  ||  perl.apache.org
single o-> + single o-+ = singlesheavenhttp://www.singlesheaven.com

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Ask Bjoern Hansen]

On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Stas Bekman wrote:

[...]
> So, perl.apache.org is just a VH at apache.org. You have almost no ability
> to add components to the system, and of course no root access. Installing
> mod_perl, mysql, modules is absolutely possible technically, but in
> reality it isn't, because no matter whether you have a root access or not,
> the resources are limited... I guess other resources to...

Eh, we can do everything we want to at the apache.org machine. What makes
you think otherwise?


  - ask
 
-- 
ask bjoern hansen - 
more than 50M impressions per day, 

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[James G Smith]

Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anyway, let's stop talking about "you" and "we", we are all "we" :) No
>competition, only collaboration. James is working on this application,
>which is in pretty good stage (James?), why in the world would you want to
>write something else from scratch? James' tool will be able to index jobs,
>ISPs, application, modules whatever... So I think that the best idea would
>be to join James, and in a joint effort deliver it sooner, influencing on
>the way the final set of features... But as always, I might be wrong, so
>it's just an idea... I'm very delighted to know that you started to work
>on the new site and I'm in no way would try to stop or provide
>deconstructing thoughts :) 

Since you asked :), I thought I'd give a brief description of where 
the code is:
  Fresh::Index - Database viewer - provides indexes and record views
  Fresh::User  - Manages user accounts - requests, editing, resetting
  Fresh::DBI   - Manages direct database interaction - used by other
 Fresh:: modules

  I would put Fresh::Index at 75% finished, Fresh::User at 50% and
Fresh::DBI at 80%.  Module configuration is a combination of
database tables and PerlSetVar directives.  Fresh::Index needs a bit
more configurability and Fresh::DBI needs to treat user data and
application data as unconnected, allowing one user database for
a set of application databases (mod_perl, mod_php, ...).
-- 
James Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 409-862-3725
Texas A&M CIS Operating Systems Group, Unix

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Stas Bekman]

> Aha, now I see much more clearly. I had thought about that, but had pushed
> it to the back of my brain as a problem that could be solved when time came
> to go live. I have a server myself, and though I probably couldn't get
> approval to open it to others I can do pretty much what I want as long as
> I'm the one doing it (or if others modify anything themselves, it's through
> cvs or ftp, just no shell). I guess I'm not the only one to be able to
> provide such facilities so I thought of all us people some solution would
> be possible. After all, mod_perl attracts many people that have their own
> servers (as opposed to just having an account), and perl.apache.org could
> probably point to another server.
> 
> But if we can't, then we might be indeed in trouble and I was wrong putting
> it in the back of my mind. What do you think ?

I think there are 2 issues here - 1st is site's look and feel, which might
be pretty static - so no problem here. 2nd is all the dynamic part, which
consists of 2 parts - us having an ability to admin the information
add/delete and user to search and page thru it - something I don't see how
can be done taken the nature of apache.org (as I've explained in my
previous email)

> >For me as of this moment perl.apache.org is a gopher site (remember that
> >name?), with links for downloading docs and mod_perl. And that's not far
> >from truth. If we succeed to revive perl.apache.org to make it a dynamic
> >site, I don't see any reason to have all the functionality we wanted to
> >add to SourceGarden there. Our main goal is different - a greenhouse for
> >mod_perl sw.
> 
> I agree. Well, depending on the content if we can't have enough access at
> perl.apache.org there is still the solution to generate it statically and
> commit it to cvs automatically. And what can't fit into that scheme would
> go to sourcegarden, which is not a bad solution at all, I just find that it
> would be a pity to have such technical constraints on the way
> functionality/content is distributed between the sister-sites. Ideally we
> wouldn't have to take anything else than the actual content into account.
> 
> I might look into the possibility of adding a few ssh accounts to our
> server if I can get approval on this.

But you are talking about yet another server... I don't get it?

I think all the admin dynamic part can be generated/maintaned on
sourcegarden, and perl.apache.org would be just a static cvs dump of all
the information that's static. Whenever user will want to search or page
thru dynamic info (jobs, modules, ISPs, changes file...) she will have to
go to another site (sourcegarden), unless you succeed to change the
situation... We can cooperate on having the same look and feel of course,
to make the browsing experience much better and transparent for a
surfer...

___
Stas Bekman  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.singlesheaven.com/stas  
Perl,CGI,Apache,Linux,Web,Java,PC at  www.singlesheaven.com/stas/TULARC
www.apache.org  & www.perl.com  == www.modperl.com  ||  perl.apache.org
single o-> + single o-+ = singlesheavenhttp://www.singlesheaven.com

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Robin Berjon]

At 10:41 19/10/1999 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
>That makes sense. But you should understand my motives for moving to
>modperl.sourcegarden.org. Otherwise there was no reason not do everything
>at perl.apache.org.
>
>So, perl.apache.org is just a VH at apache.org. You have almost no ability
>to add components to the system, and of course no root access. Installing
>mod_perl, mysql, modules is absolutely possible technically, but in
>reality it isn't, because no matter whether you have a root access or not,
>the resources are limited... I guess other resources to...

Aha, now I see much more clearly. I had thought about that, but had pushed
it to the back of my brain as a problem that could be solved when time came
to go live. I have a server myself, and though I probably couldn't get
approval to open it to others I can do pretty much what I want as long as
I'm the one doing it (or if others modify anything themselves, it's through
cvs or ftp, just no shell). I guess I'm not the only one to be able to
provide such facilities so I thought of all us people some solution would
be possible. After all, mod_perl attracts many people that have their own
servers (as opposed to just having an account), and perl.apache.org could
probably point to another server.

But if we can't, then we might be indeed in trouble and I was wrong putting
it in the back of my mind. What do you think ?

>For me as of this moment perl.apache.org is a gopher site (remember that
>name?), with links for downloading docs and mod_perl. And that's not far
>from truth. If we succeed to revive perl.apache.org to make it a dynamic
>site, I don't see any reason to have all the functionality we wanted to
>add to SourceGarden there. Our main goal is different - a greenhouse for
>mod_perl sw.

I agree. Well, depending on the content if we can't have enough access at
perl.apache.org there is still the solution to generate it statically and
commit it to cvs automatically. And what can't fit into that scheme would
go to sourcegarden, which is not a bad solution at all, I just find that it
would be a pity to have such technical constraints on the way
functionality/content is distributed between the sister-sites. Ideally we
wouldn't have to take anything else than the actual content into account.

I might look into the possibility of adding a few ssh accounts to our
server if I can get approval on this.


>> I might be wrong too, otherwise I probably wouldn't bother discussing these
>> projects :-) Your thoughts are very far from deconstructive to say the
>> least, and I hope mine aren't either. If they sound like they are, I've
>> probably misexpressed myself.
>
>Argh... Just wanted to keep your spirit up :) 

You did, and you do ;-)

>> PS: maybe we should take this discussion to the mod-cvs list ?
>
>The problem is that not many people are subscribed on this list and I
>still beleive that more people might be interested in providing a
>feedback. As long as we keep [SITE] token in the subject I think it can be
>easily discarded by uninterested folks. Correct me if I'm wrong...

I think you're right, I was just asking out of curtesy (in case there are
too many people around that really don't care).



.Robin
"What I like about deadlines is the lovely whooshing sound they make as
they rush past." --Douglas Adams

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Stas Bekman]

> At 09:12 19/10/1999 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >> We were planning to put a good deal of the stuff into a db too I think. I
> >> guess it doesn't matter too much if we have duplicated content as long as
> >> it is in sync. We will have to take into account what you are doing so that
> >> we can cross-link whenever it makes sense.
> >
> >Of course it does matter not to have the stuff duplicated, since it's a
> >nightmare to keep 2 things in sync, but why should we doing that? I don't
> >see any reason... We wanted to do that to complement the current site, if
> >you are going to do that anyway, there is no reason, why we wouldn't put
> >our efforts to create other useful things...
> 
> Sorry, I tend to shorten what I think too much to say what I really think,
> ah! if only we had lossless expression ;-) Yes of course it does matter if
> we are duplicating the information *source*. What I meant to say is that if
> the same information makes sense in two different contexts -- even very
> close context -- then it doesn't matter if it is available in both (imho).

That makes sense. But you should understand my motives for moving to
modperl.sourcegarden.org. Otherwise there was no reason not do everything
at perl.apache.org. 

So, perl.apache.org is just a VH at apache.org. You have almost no ability
to add components to the system, and of course no root access. Installing
mod_perl, mysql, modules is absolutely possible technically, but in
reality it isn't, because no matter whether you have a root access or not,
the resources are limited... I guess other resources to...

With SourceGarden I've everything I want and need, thanks to Scream Design
team folks! That's why I feel much better creating for this site, and I
cannot tell myself, I don't feel like adding this feature, since it's a
headache to ask permission to do that and chances that the it would be
approved... So we (the folks behind SourceGarden) have no excuses not to 
do something, so we do it... 

I'm not sure whether you have thought about the described limitations as
part of your plan. But if you come up with solution that will allows us to
run mod_perl and mysql at perl.apache.org - I think we would be delighted
to have James' tool running on perl.apache.org, so you wouldn't jump
between sites... 

For me as of this moment perl.apache.org is a gopher site (remember that
name?), with links for downloading docs and mod_perl. And that's not far
from truth. If we succeed to revive perl.apache.org to make it a dynamic
site, I don't see any reason to have all the functionality we wanted to
add to SourceGarden there. Our main goal is different - a greenhouse for
mod_perl sw.

That's it I think!

> >But as always, I might be wrong, so
> >it's just an idea... I'm very delighted to know that you started to work
> >on the new site and I'm in no way would try to stop or provide
> >deconstructing thoughts :) 
> 
> I might be wrong too, otherwise I probably wouldn't bother discussing these
> projects :-) Your thoughts are very far from deconstructive to say the
> least, and I hope mine aren't either. If they sound like they are, I've
> probably misexpressed myself.

Argh... Just wanted to keep your spirit up :) 

> Matt and I are working on an outline, we probably should share what we've got.
> PS: maybe we should take this discussion to the mod-cvs list ?

The problem is that not many people are subscribed on this list and I
still beleive that more people might be interested in providing a
feedback. As long as we keep [SITE] token in the subject I think it can be
easily discarded by uninterested folks. Correct me if I'm wrong...

___
Stas Bekman  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.singlesheaven.com/stas  
Perl,CGI,Apache,Linux,Web,Java,PC at  www.singlesheaven.com/stas/TULARC
www.apache.org  & www.perl.com  == www.modperl.com  ||  perl.apache.org
single o-> + single o-+ = singlesheavenhttp://www.singlesheaven.com

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Robin Berjon]

At 09:12 19/10/1999 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
>> We were planning to put a good deal of the stuff into a db too I think. I
>> guess it doesn't matter too much if we have duplicated content as long as
>> it is in sync. We will have to take into account what you are doing so that
>> we can cross-link whenever it makes sense.
>
>Of course it does matter not to have the stuff duplicated, since it's a
>nightmare to keep 2 things in sync, but why should we doing that? I don't
>see any reason... We wanted to do that to complement the current site, if
>you are going to do that anyway, there is no reason, why we wouldn't put
>our efforts to create other useful things...

Sorry, I tend to shorten what I think too much to say what I really think,
ah! if only we had lossless expression ;-) Yes of course it does matter if
we are duplicating the information *source*. What I meant to say is that if
the same information makes sense in two different contexts -- even very
close context -- then it doesn't matter if it is available in both (imho).

What I'm worried/thinking about is layout disparity. I think that
information pertaining to jobs or success stories needs to be present on
the mod_perl site. It would feel awkward to jump to another site for that,
even when both layouts are good if they are (too) different it looks messy.

So if that information is meaningful within modperl.sourcegarden.org and
within perl.apache.org, mirroring the info in a database daily (or using
one source) really doesn't sound like a dreadful technical challenge to me.

But I must add to that that there is something within me that wishes to
speak against duplication, even if it doesn't become a technical nightmare.
However, it can't seem to find arguments to support itself. I am totally
open to discussion on this point.


>Anyway, let's stop talking about "you" and "we", we are all "we" :) No
>competition, only collaboration.

You'd expect competition to have crossed my mind and be rejected, but it
actually hasn't. I am very happy to learn that part of the job has been /
is being done. I think one important thing would be to decide what goes
into modperl.sourcegarden.org, what goes into perl.apache.org and perhaps
what goes into both. Duplicating efforts would be of course stupid, and
drawing the line between site that intertwine and sites that truly overlap
can only help.

> James is working on this application,
>which is in pretty good stage (James?), why in the world would you want to
>write something else from scratch? James' tool will be able to index jobs,
>ISPs, application, modules whatever... So I think that the best idea would
>be to join James, and in a joint effort deliver it sooner, influencing on
>the way the final set of features... 

I totally agree.

>But as always, I might be wrong, so
>it's just an idea... I'm very delighted to know that you started to work
>on the new site and I'm in no way would try to stop or provide
>deconstructing thoughts :) 

I might be wrong too, otherwise I probably wouldn't bother discussing these
projects :-) Your thoughts are very far from deconstructive to say the
least, and I hope mine aren't either. If they sound like they are, I've
probably misexpressed myself.

Matt and I are working on an outline, we probably should share what we've got.

PS: maybe we should take this discussion to the mod-cvs list ?



.Robin
Critic, n.: A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries
to please him.

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Stas Bekman]

> >I'm very excited about you picking the flag and actually doing the
> >redesign. Since modperl.sourcegarden.org is a sister site of
> >perl.apache.org, the two will be tighlty reconnected. We are going to
> >absorb some of the pages from the current mod_perl site. I'm talking about
> >3rd party modules, jobs, ISPs, success stories and other. We want to put
> >them into a DB with web admin interface, by using Jsmes' 'fresh'
> >application
> 
> We were planning to put a good deal of the stuff into a db too I think. I
> guess it doesn't matter too much if we have duplicated content as long as
> it is in sync. We will have to take into account what you are doing so that
> we can cross-link whenever it makes sense.

Of course it does matter not to have the stuff duplicated, since it's a
nightmare to keep 2 things in sync, but why should we doing that? I don't
see any reason... We wanted to do that to complement the current site, if
you are going to do that anyway, there is no reason, why we wouldn't put
our efforts to create other useful things...

Anyway, let's stop talking about "you" and "we", we are all "we" :) No
competition, only collaboration. James is working on this application,
which is in pretty good stage (James?), why in the world would you want to
write something else from scratch? James' tool will be able to index jobs,
ISPs, application, modules whatever... So I think that the best idea would
be to join James, and in a joint effort deliver it sooner, influencing on
the way the final set of features... But as always, I might be wrong, so
it's just an idea... I'm very delighted to know that you started to work
on the new site and I'm in no way would try to stop or provide
deconstructing thoughts :) 


___
Stas Bekman  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.singlesheaven.com/stas  
Perl,CGI,Apache,Linux,Web,Java,PC at  www.singlesheaven.com/stas/TULARC
www.apache.org  & www.perl.com  == www.modperl.com  ||  perl.apache.org
single o-> + single o-+ = singlesheavenhttp://www.singlesheaven.com

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Robin Berjon]

At 22:00 16/10/1999 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
>After reworking the initial design based on the comments I've received,
>the next version was release at SourceGarden see
>http://modperl.sourcegarden.org/ - it's being created by Site::Builder -
>you can retrieve it from the garden's Safari pet:
>
>http://modperl.sourcegarden.org:5676/cvs/-/-/site_builder/

Thanks, I'll be looking into all this, I'm sure it'll help.

>I'm very excited about you picking the flag and actually doing the
>redesign. Since modperl.sourcegarden.org is a sister site of
>perl.apache.org, the two will be tighlty reconnected. We are going to
>absorb some of the pages from the current mod_perl site. I'm talking about
>3rd party modules, jobs, ISPs, success stories and other. We want to put
>them into a DB with web admin interface, by using Jsmes' 'fresh'
>application

We were planning to put a good deal of the stuff into a db too I think. I
guess it doesn't matter too much if we have duplicated content as long as
it is in sync. We will have to take into account what you are doing so that
we can cross-link whenever it makes sense.




.Robin
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Stas Bekman]

> >BTW, if you remember that I've tried to create a new site about half a
> >year ago (the first snapshot is still there at stason.org/stas/modperl)
> >I've never made the second version :( It all went into
> >modperl.sourcegarden.org's design...
> 
> Yes I remember, I would have helped back then (April) but I was way too
> busy crossing the Atlantic and the amount of unconstructive criticism
> unusual on this list probably didn't help get me more involved. Digging
> up in the archives, I have found the link to the Site::Builder source
> (http://www.singlesheaven.com/stas/modperl/src/builder.tar.gz , is it
> the right one ?) which I am now downloading. As for the site, well it
> has a few flaws but nothing worth flaming for and no project-killer.
> There are a few things which I quite like, I think we'll list those when
> time comes to actually design something. 
> 
> Also, your input on what could be reused from your code would certainly be
> helpful.

After reworking the initial design based on the comments I've received,
the next version was release at SourceGarden see
http://modperl.sourcegarden.org/ - it's being created by Site::Builder -
you can retrieve it from the garden's Safari pet:

http://modperl.sourcegarden.org:5676/cvs/-/-/site_builder/

> One funny thing, back then people referred to the Guide as the "miniguide" :-)

It was "mini" then :)

> >Anyway, I've got about 40 emails with responds from people regarding the
> >above first release. just a part of them in he archive, I can send the
> >emails to you -- there are many good comments in there. 
> 
> If you have anything that's not in the archives then I think those could
> help, any good comments help.

I've checked, all you need are in the archive, the personal posts were to
cheer me up :)

> >But while being flattered with having a Guide as part of the main menu,
> >this is unfair to other folks who wrote an invaluable documentation
> >(Vivek, Frank and other). While the Guide has integrated almost all of
> >them inside itself, I vote for having a 'Documentation' entry in the
> >main menu, with a sub menu, enlisting all the available documentation
> >there. YMMV... Thanks!
> 
> Yes I totally agree. I had actually thought of that but I was just offering
> a design idea and no real categorisation so I stopped before I started
> looking for all available documentation. I meant neither offense nor praise
> (though I think there is much praise to be said about the mod_perl
> documentation as a whole, and making the "Books" entry plural was intentional).

No problem, I'm not trying to put you down, as it happened with me. Just
a suggestion.

I'm very excited about you picking the flag and actually doing the
redesign. Since modperl.sourcegarden.org is a sister site of
perl.apache.org, the two will be tighlty reconnected. We are going to
absorb some of the pages from the current mod_perl site. I'm talking about
3rd party modules, jobs, ISPs, success stories and other. We want to put
them into a DB with web admin interface, by using Jsmes' 'fresh'
application

Will be linked at http://modperl.sourcegarden.org/fresh/

You may see a beta version at: http://modperl.jamesmith.com/

___
Stas Bekman  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.singlesheaven.com/stas  
Perl,CGI,Apache,Linux,Web,Java,PC at  www.singlesheaven.com/stas/TULARC
www.apache.org  & www.perl.com  == www.modperl.com  ||  perl.apache.org
single o-> + single o-+ = singlesheavenhttp://www.singlesheaven.com

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Robin Berjon]

At 01:06 15/10/1999 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
>The list already exist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] or this one
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (it's an alias right? was it also
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?)

Oh, that's good to know :-) Is it any/all of the above ? And if so, is it
running Majordomo or ezmlm (so that I can figure how to subscribe) ?


>BTW, if you remember that I've tried to create a new site about half a
>year ago (the first snapshot is still there at stason.org/stas/modperl)
>I've never made the second version :( It all went into
>modperl.sourcegarden.org's design...

Yes I remember, I would have helped back then (April) but I was way too
busy crossing the Atlantic and the amount of unconstructive criticism
unusual on this list probably didn't help get me more involved. Digging up
in the archives, I have found the link to the Site::Builder source
(http://www.singlesheaven.com/stas/modperl/src/builder.tar.gz , is it the
right one ?) which I am now downloading. As for the site, well it has a few
flaws but nothing worth flaming for and no project-killer. There are a few
things which I quite like, I think we'll list those when time comes to
actually design something.

Also, your input on what could be reused from your code would certainly be
helpful.

One funny thing, back then people referred to the Guide as the "miniguide" :-)

>Anyway, I've got about 40 emails with responds from people regarding the
>above first release. just a part of them in he archive, I can send the
>emails to you -- there are many good comments in there. 

If you have anything that's not in the archives then I think those could
help, any good comments help.


>But while being flattered with having a Guide as part of the main menu,
>this is unfair to other folks who wrote an invaluable documentation
>(Vivek, Frank and other). While the Guide has integrated almost all of
>them inside itself, I vote for having a 'Documentation' entry in the
>main menu, with a sub menu, enlisting all the available documentation
>there. YMMV... Thanks!

Yes I totally agree. I had actually thought of that but I was just offering
a design idea and no real categorisation so I stopped before I started
looking for all available documentation. I meant neither offense nor praise
(though I think there is much praise to be said about the mod_perl
documentation as a whole, and making the "Books" entry plural was intentional).





.Robin
You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Frank D. Cringle]

Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My personal comment on both of your previews, is that they are very cool! 
> But while being flattered with having a Guide as part of the main menu,
> this is unfair to other folks who wrote an invaluable documentation
> (Vivek, Frank and other).

For my part, I leave that decision entirly up to the designers.  If it 
fits in there, fine.  If it doesn't, that's fine too.

-- 
Frank Cringle,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (+49 2304) 467101; fax: 943357

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Stas Bekman]

> At 19:02 12/10/1999 -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> >> > - mod_perl news.
> >> > - mod_perl FAQs, developer's guides and documentation.
> >> > - mod_perl evangelism, quantitative and anecdotal comparison with similar
> >> >   tools.
> >
> >We need a little crowd of people to keep especially the news and acecdotes
> >updates. This will be a lot of work if it's going to be done well.
> 
> 
> Matt Arnold, Neil Kandalgaonkar and I have decided to team up and start
> working on the new site. Discussing this on the list would probably be too
> noisy and I guess that having a mailing-list for the few people that will
> help at first might be overkill (though I am in no way against it if
> someone thinks it's better to have one). Suggestions and ideas are of
> course very welcome. I guess we will be feeding our decisions and
> realisations back to the list for review.

The list already exist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] or this one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (it's an alias right? was it also
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?)

BTW, if you remember that I've tried to create a new site about half a
year ago (the first snapshot is still there at stason.org/stas/modperl)
I've never made the second version :( It all went into
modperl.sourcegarden.org's design...

Anyway, I've got about 40 emails with responds from people regarding the
above first release. just a part of them in he archive, I can send the
emails to you -- there are many good comments in there. 

My personal comment on both of your previews, is that they are very cool! 
But while being flattered with having a Guide as part of the main menu,
this is unfair to other folks who wrote an invaluable documentation
(Vivek, Frank and other). While the Guide has integrated almost all of
them inside itself, I vote for having a 'Documentation' entry in the
main menu, with a sub menu, enlisting all the available documentation
there. YMMV... Thanks!


___
Stas Bekman  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.singlesheaven.com/stas  
Perl,CGI,Apache,Linux,Web,Java,PC at  www.singlesheaven.com/stas/TULARC
www.apache.org  & www.perl.com  == www.modperl.com  ||  perl.apache.org
single o-> + single o-+ = singlesheavenhttp://www.singlesheaven.com

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Robin Berjon]

At 19:02 12/10/1999 -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>> > - mod_perl news.
>> > - mod_perl FAQs, developer's guides and documentation.
>> > - mod_perl evangelism, quantitative and anecdotal comparison with similar
>> >   tools.
>
>We need a little crowd of people to keep especially the news and acecdotes
>updates. This will be a lot of work if it's going to be done well.


Matt Arnold, Neil Kandalgaonkar and I have decided to team up and start
working on the new site. Discussing this on the list would probably be too
noisy and I guess that having a mailing-list for the few people that will
help at first might be overkill (though I am in no way against it if
someone thinks it's better to have one). Suggestions and ideas are of
course very welcome. I guess we will be feeding our decisions and
realisations back to the list for review.


>:-) Well, there isn't really anything on the current site that needs
>mod_perl.

Indeed, but would it be a problem if we were to create something that needs
it ? I could put it on my own server but it is already taking a lot of hits
and isn't far from lacking resources (we will have a farm in the two months
to come, then I can make an offer).


>> > been used and uploaded it at http://www.knowscape.org/modperl/ ...
>> 
>> This example is real nice, [...]
>
>I agree, I like it a lot too.

*blush*
Thanks :-)


>But what we really need is someone to do the
>work, so if you (and whoever else) is willing to do it, more power to you!

Talking about power, is there a way we could get a tarball of all that is
presently online so that we can start work with content that already exists
? We could crawl the site, but if anything happens on the server-side we'll
miss it.




.Robin
After all, what is your hosts' purpose in having a party?  Surely not for
you to enjoy yourself; if that were their sole purpose, they'd have simply
sent champagne and women over to your place by taxi.

RE: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Eric Cholet]

> >Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:
> >> As a side note, reading about that desert idea this morning triggered a
> >> neuron somehow, so I quickly modified an old template of mine that hadn't
> >> been used and uploaded it at http://www.knowscape.org/modperl/ ...
> 

Adding my vote to this too, I think it looks very slick. At any rate it's
much better than what we have now.

--
Eric

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Neil Kandalgaonkar]

At 19:09 -0500 1999-10-12, Matt Arnold wrote:
> While
>art/layout issues are certainly subjective, I actually saw it as the area of
>least controversy, and that's why I tried to slip it through.  :-)

Ha! Not likely. We've all sat through meetings where people agonized over
colors and passed over backend issues in silence.


>Jesse Kanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:
>> Will you have any comps of the second level pages? Which information would
>> go where?

Second and even third level architecture is very important. It's
seductively easy to focus on the front page.


> And I don't want to bemoan the
>lack of any content which I'm not willing to create.  :-)

Why not? I think for a site like this, it would be fine to make a good
master plan and put an incomplete site. Volunteers should hopefully arise
to patch up the holes, or the site maintainers can actively needle the
community about stuff that needs to be written.



>Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:
>> As a side note, reading about that desert idea this morning triggered a
>> neuron somehow, so I quickly modified an old template of mine that hadn't
>> been used and uploaded it at http://www.knowscape.org/modperl/ ...

I liked this a lot! The eagle theme is great, although the association
between that particular engraving and mod_perl may be a trademark of
O'Reilly (caveat: IANAL).


>  I see people
>turning away from salvation only because we failed to offer an adequate
>invitation.  We must act now, lest we lose yet another soul to an expensive,
>proprietary, inferior product.

I don't care about other "souls" per se. I'd like a site that was useful to
*me*. Selfish? Yes! Paradoxically, I think you'll find a site which
energizes and serves the existing community will ultimately attract more
people that one which flails about trying to impress newcomers with
Microsoft-like spec sheets.

mod_perl would come into more disrepute if we made a site that was weak on
content. This doesn't mean we have to come up with a surpassingly wonderful
site all at once, we should just design a process that attracts the best
content, is easy to administer, links to the best content, allows for easy
updates, etc. etc.

--
Neil Kandalgaonkar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Architect, Stylus Inc.   http://www.stylus.ca/

Re: [SITE] the great redesign of 1999

[Ask Bjoern Hansen]

On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Matt Arnold wrote:

[...]
> some extent, I believe people are put off by what they find.  The
> information isn't necessarily poor, it just isn't what they expect.

Indeed.
 
> > - mod_perl news.
> > - mod_perl FAQs, developer's guides and documentation.
> > - mod_perl evangelism, quantitative and anecdotal comparison with similar
> >   tools.

We need a little crowd of people to keep especially the news and acecdotes
updates. This will be a lot of work if it's going to be done well.

[...]
> > - where appropriate, demonstrate the power mod_perl (as in, actually use
> >  the darn thing on the site...)

:-) Well, there isn't really anything on the current site that needs
mod_perl.

> I think this outline is a good one.  I want to offer a simple
> introduction -- why mod_perl is so cool.  I want to offer the marketing
[...]

It all sounds very good, I for one will be happy to support it with words
and critics (time to actually doing something right now is another story).

> Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:
> > As a side note, reading about that desert idea this morning triggered a
> > neuron somehow, so I quickly modified an old template of mine that hadn't
> > been used and uploaded it at http://www.knowscape.org/modperl/ ...
> 
> This example is real nice, [...]

I agree, I like it a lot too.

[...]
> We need someone to make hard decisions -- someone that can decide what stays
> and what goes, a person (or people) that can take the roles of "art
> director", "technical editor", "non-technical editor", and perhaps other
> roles.  We need someone to herd cats.  :-)

What about you and Robin Berjon gets together and makes some more specific
outline for a prototype? We can setup another mailinglist for discussing
the website if we need it. But what we really need is someone to do the
work, so if you (and whoever else) is willing to do it, more power to you!
 
> [X-Disclaimer:  All of this, of course, is my very humble opinion.  Your
> mileage may vary.  There's more than one way to do it.  And everything I say
> may be completely wrong.]

I think you and the other people writing in this thread is very much on
the right track!


  - ask

-- 
ask bjoern hansen - 
more than 40M impressions per day,