Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Robert Leland wrote: Joe: Thanks, I was hoping you would chime in ! It looks like you used maven for your site, and I prefer your color scheme over the standard... Which is here, if anyone was wondering: http://demo.jgsullivan.com/struts/ -T. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Joe Germuska wrote: It will be some mildly tedious work to move the current doc to xdocs, but nothing too bad, and if they are valid xhtml, it will be much easier. The documentation is all XML now. Steve was just tweaking the XLS. There's a bit of HTML/XHTML in the sample applications, but that's trivial and probably wouldn't be a Maven issue anyway. I'm no expert, but I'll be happy to help where I can. It can be a little frustrating to push an existing CVS structure into Maven conventions (I tried to do it for SnipSnap and really got stuck, but their build is pretty funky.) It's a breeze when you start fresh (like maybe Struts 2.0...) So it sounds like that since Maven is also a build tool, we not only have to address the web site/documentation content but bring CVS in line. Unless someone is of the opinion that moving the Struts CVS to Maven conventions is a no-brainer, perhaps the consensus should be to consider Maven for any *new* Struts product installations (CVS/website combinations). This could include + A new CVS/website for the taglibs + A new CVS/website for Struts 2.x (which is now just a roadmap) So, given either or both of these, the Struts home page could become a simple portal that links to our products (1.x core, taglibs, 2.x roadmap). Once we got started on Maven using fresh meat, we could then make a informed decision about whether to migrate the Struts 1.x core. Meanwhile (assuming the 1.x CVS is an issue), if someone were interested in moving the 1.x documentation to Forrest, I wouldn't be opposed. -Ted. (Just a random thought, would either Maven or Forrest care that how we generate the taglib API documentation from the TLDs?) -- Ted Husted, Junit in Action - http://www.manning.com/massol/, Struts in Action - http://husted.com/struts/book.html, JSP Site Design - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1861005512. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Ted Husted wrote: Joe Germuska wrote: It will be some mildly tedious work to move the current doc to xdocs, but nothing too bad, and if they are valid xhtml, it will be much easier. The documentation is all XML now. Steve was just tweaking the XLS. There's a bit of HTML/XHTML in the sample applications, but that's trivial and probably wouldn't be a Maven issue anyway. Yes but most likely the some of the element names would need to change, or we write an XSLT to translate. I would vote to rename the elements. In the interm we could modify our stylesheets to look for the new element names. I'm no expert, but I'll be happy to help where I can. It can be a little frustrating to push an existing CVS structure into Maven conventions (I tried to do it for SnipSnap and really got stuck, but their build is pretty funky.) It's a breeze when you start fresh (like maybe Struts 2.0...) So it sounds like that since Maven is also a build tool, we not only have to address the web site/documentation content but bring CVS in line. I more an issue of setting the right variables in project.xml. I have already set the source and test xml variables I am strongly in favor of moving to maven now, and will help where I can. The effort involved is much less than adding many of the features listed for Struts 2.0 Unless someone is of the opinion that moving the Struts CVS to Maven conventions is a no-brainer, perhaps the consensus should be to consider Maven for any *new* Struts product installations (CVS/website combinations). This could include + A new CVS/website for the taglibs + A new CVS/website for Struts 2.x (which is now just a roadmap) So, given either or both of these, the Struts home page could become a simple portal that links to our products (1.x core, taglibs, 2.x roadmap). Once we got started on Maven using fresh meat, we could then make a informed decision about whether to migrate the Struts 1.x core. Meanwhile (assuming the 1.x CVS is an issue), if someone were interested in moving the 1.x documentation to Forrest, I wouldn't be opposed. -Ted. (Just a random thought, would either Maven or Forrest care that how we generate the taglib API documentation from the TLDs?) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
I don't actually care, and, lacking a basis of comparison, I don't even know if what we have now is broken. Will Maven or Forrest be less work? If so, great. Personally, I don't care about the look and feel issues. It looks the way it looks. I just want to know if it will make better use of our volunteer time. One big gain from going to Maven is that it makes the barrier to working with the code very low. Long-time committers may not remember so well, but it takes a fair bit of configuration to get a Struts build working. Meanwhile, Maven downloads all the dependencies for you, and can generate IDE projects for several of the major IDEs (with the exception of Netbeans, I think because NB uses object serialization instead of text files to store project configurations.) So a potential gain would be for more Struts users to hop over the wall to being Struts developers. Of course, there's a lot more to that than just being able to compile changes to the source tree, but being able to build Struts from source is obviously the first step to reviewing bugs, trying fixes, and submitting patches. Rob is right that we don't HAVE to move the CVS around to use Maven -- and with the possible exception of the integration testing, I don't foresee any major complexities. It looks like this weekend is another wash for me in terms of project time but I'll see if I can find some time this week to see where Rob is with maven-izing Struts and see if I can help at all. Joe -- -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com If nature worked that way, the universe would crash all the time. --Jaron Lanier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Visually, I'm not a huge fan of either system's default LF, but I don't dislike either of them enough to vote -1 on that basis. My understanding is that there is some room for customization with either, though, if we wanted to expend the effort to manage our own LF. The argument for consistency with other Jakarta subprojects is good in theory, but I don't see most Jakarta subproject websites using either yet -- at least for their pages on jakarta.apache.org. It would also not be an issue if we ever wanted to become a top-level Apache project (like Maven and Ant did), versus staying under Jakarta. I was under the impression that the blue/grey lf was the new Jakarta standard that sites would be moving to. Maybe it's just the default Maven lf that no one ever bothered to customize. Both the Maven and Forrest lf are fine with me; I'm just a big fan of consistency so if there is a Jakarta standard we should follow it. David Craig __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Joe Germuska wrote: One big gain from going to Maven is that it makes the barrier to working with the code very low. Long-time committers may not remember so well, but it takes a fair bit of configuration to get a Struts build working. Meanwhile, Maven downloads all the dependencies for you, and can generate IDE projects for several of the major IDEs (with the exception of Netbeans, I think because NB uses object serialization instead of text files to store project configurations.) Joe I'm a BIG +1 in support of Maven for build/doc for this reason. I set up the Struts build a couple months ago, and had to reset it again, and it was quite tedious in a few sections. G MAVEN! Adam K. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
David Graham wrote: I was under the impression that the blue/grey lf was the new Jakarta standard that sites would be moving to. Maybe it's just the default Maven lf that no one ever bothered to customize. Both the Maven and Forrest lf are fine with me; I'm just a big fan of consistency so if there is a Jakarta standard we should follow it. My guess is that few bother to customize (and may not even know how). AFAIK, there is no direction coming from the PMC or ASF to standardize on either Maven or Forrest. As Craig says, there's no telling how long we will remain a Jakarta subproject. Even so, of 22 top-level Jakarta products only three seem to be using Maven: jakarta.apache.org/bcel jakarta.apache.org/poi jakarta.apache.org/turbine Within the Commons, Maven is more popular. There are also 22 packages there, and 13 seem to be using Maven: Betwixt CLI Codec Daemon DBCP FileUpload HttpClient Jelly JxPath Latka Net Pool Validator Maven is quite popular in the Sandbox, where all the listed products that have setup Welcome pages seem to be using Maven. As you might note, there is a pattern here of Maven being adopted for new development, but there has been almost no transition of mature products to Maven. Of the 16 top-level Apache level (where we should be anyway), three projects are using Maven, counting Maven itself avalon.apache.org db.apache.org maven.apache.org and four are using Forrest ant.apache.org cocoon.apache.org incubator.apache.org xml.apache.org Unsurprisingly, Forrest is relatively popular among the 13 products of xml.apache.org, where it being used by six products (including Forrest itself): xml.apache.org/fop xml.apache.org/forrest xml.apache.org/commons xml.apache.org/security xml.apache.org/xindice xml.apache.org/xmlbeans But even in XML land, one hold out, xmlrpc, is using Maven. [Bless their souls :)] As to there ever being an Apache or Jakarta standard, I would venture to say that such a thing would be unlikely. These are the types of decisions that the ASF prefers to leave to the Committers that actually manage the project. If a standard emerges, it will be a defacto standard that evolves from the decisions each team makes about whether the package works for them. (Let Darwin decide.) My own personal guess is that if such a standard does emerge one day, it will look more like Forrest and less like Maven. But, honestly, I don't really care what we use, so long as the work gets done =:0) No matter what we use today, sooner or later I'm sure we'll be using something else =:0) -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Robert Leland wrote: I am strongly in favor of moving to maven now, and will help where I can. My only concern is that we continue to view Struts 1.x as being evolutionary mode. If we have a consensus on this point, then we should all be careful that we do nothing that will break the build or prevent us from shipping a release on a moment's notice. I don't actually care what system we use (including the existing one), so long as it works and continues to work. For myself, at this time, I'm devoting my volunteer hours to finishing things that we already started, beginning with the legacy 1.1 bugzilla tickets, and try to put together something resembling a roadmap. I'll then be converting my own stuff over to the nightly build (1.2.x) to help document any issues others may encounter. The effort involved is much less than adding many of the features listed for Struts 2.0 AFAIK, Struts 2.x is a revolution which implies an new code base. We're not adding features for Struts 2.x, we're using lessons learned from Struts 1.x to build Struts 2.x from the ground up. Of course, I'm sure that there will be code that we can port, but, AFAIK, Struts 2.x is a clean slate. Which, IMHO, makes it a good place to give Maven a try. Joe says he's using Maven in production and seems to like it. I trust Joe and value his opinion. It would be nice to hear from some other people who are using Maven in larger projects that rival the complexity of Struts. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Yes, I'd like to get involved in that but I haven't used Maven before so I need to find time to get to grips with it. I'm aware that this is only an interim measure but figured it was worth getting done now. Steve -Original Message- From: Robert Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 5, 2003 10:43 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML] Steve Raeburn wrote: I have committed the first step in transitioning the web site documentation to valid XHTML. As far as I know we were planning to move over to Maven or forrest. I have been working on Mavenizing items as I can. Instead of doing the stylesheets maybe your efforts could be directed towards integrating those xml docs into maven ? Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc system we are moving to ? -Rob - 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]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Robert Leland wrote: Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc system we are moving to ? Don already put the Struts SourceForge site on Forrest, so I would lean in that direction. http://struts.sourceforge.net/ http://xml.apache.org/forrest/ -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Leland wrote: Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc system we are moving to ? Don already put the Struts SourceForge site on Forrest, so I would lean in that direction. Does Forrest require that look and feel? If so, I'm -1 only because it doesn't match the new Jakarta look and feel. I think Struts should fit in with other Jakarta sites. Also, it seems like most other Jakarta projects are using Maven so maybe we should too. David http://struts.sourceforge.net/ http://xml.apache.org/forrest/ -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, David Graham wrote: Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 10:55:26 -0700 (PDT) From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML] --- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Leland wrote: Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc system we are moving to ? Don already put the Struts SourceForge site on Forrest, so I would lean in that direction. Does Forrest require that look and feel? If so, I'm -1 only because it doesn't match the new Jakarta look and feel. I think Struts should fit in with other Jakarta sites. Also, it seems like most other Jakarta projects are using Maven so maybe we should too. Strictly from the selfish point of view of a developer wanting to minimize how many tools I have to use, I'd prefer Maven over Forrest simply because it's also a build system. Or, to put it anothe way, using Maven as a build system will give us a website/docs publishing system for free. Visually, I'm not a huge fan of either system's default LF, but I don't dislike either of them enough to vote -1 on that basis. My understanding is that there is some room for customization with either, though, if we wanted to expend the effort to manage our own LF. The argument for consistency with other Jakarta subprojects is good in theory, but I don't see most Jakarta subproject websites using either yet -- at least for their pages on jakarta.apache.org. It would also not be an issue if we ever wanted to become a top-level Apache project (like Maven and Ant did), versus staying under Jakarta. David Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Robert Leland wrote: Steve Raeburn wrote: I have committed the first step in transitioning the web site documentation to valid XHTML. As far as I know we were planning to move over to Maven or forrest. I have been working on Mavenizing items as I can. Instead of doing the stylesheets maybe your efforts could be directed towards integrating those xml docs into maven ? Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc system we are moving to ? I would go with Maven only because it provides a number of usefull reports. I don't care for the standard Maven look, but believe it's better than what we have. My main concern is to make sure whatever we pick Maven/Forrest that it's around and thriving a year from now. maven is very active but they also seem to be going through a large refactoring to reduce the memory footprint. Forrest is supposed to be slower and a bigger memory foot print, but I could care unless about that if it doesn't crash my JVM. The struts site now builds with a basic maven look, maven beta 10. We just need to hook in the doc xml which shoudln't be too bad, since there is a stylesheet directory under xdocs. If you take a look at those wild and crazy Tapestry guys it looks like you can really hack the look and feel to anything you want. -Rob - 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]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Craig R. McClanahan wrote: On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, David Graham wrote: Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 10:55:26 -0700 (PDT) From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML] --- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Leland wrote: Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc system we are moving to ? Don already put the Struts SourceForge site on Forrest, so I would lean in that direction. Does Forrest require that look and feel? If so, I'm -1 only because it doesn't match the new Jakarta look and feel. I think Struts should fit in with other Jakarta sites. Also, it seems like most other Jakarta projects are using Maven so maybe we should too. Strictly from the selfish point of view of a developer wanting to minimize how many tools I have to use, I'd prefer Maven over Forrest simply because it's also a build system. Or, to put it anothe way, using Maven as a build system will give us a website/docs publishing system for free. +1 free is good Visually, I'm not a huge fan of either system's default LF, but I don't dislike either of them enough to vote -1 on that basis. My understanding is that there is some room for customization with either, though, if we wanted to expend the effort to manage our own LF. We can always start a struts-2 web site and tweak it until we like what we have, or until it works, which ever comes first ! I also wouldn't want to maintain a seperate look and feel except to move the blasted [powered by Maven] icon to the bottom of the page with other icons like in forrest. The argument for consistency with other Jakarta subprojects is good in theory, but I don't see most Jakarta subproject websites using either yet -- at least for their pages on jakarta.apache.org. It would also not be an issue if we ever wanted to become a top-level Apache project (like Maven and Ant did), versus staying under Jakarta. David Craig - 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]
RE: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
I've used both on a couple of small (personal) projects. I used Forrest for my kids soccer team's web site. I mean, come on, how can you make things any simpler than executing forrest seed? And I used Maven for a recent client. I don't really care which one we use, but I think getting build, documentation, and reports out of one tool instead of using two or three is definitely enough to persuade my vote. I'm +1 on Maven, but I agree that the LF should be customized. -- James Mitchell Software Engineer / Struts Evangelist http://www.struts-atlanta.org 678.910.8017 AIM:jmitchtx -Original Message- From: Robert Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 2:16 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML] Robert Leland wrote: Steve Raeburn wrote: I have committed the first step in transitioning the web site documentation to valid XHTML. As far as I know we were planning to move over to Maven or forrest. I have been working on Mavenizing items as I can. Instead of doing the stylesheets maybe your efforts could be directed towards integrating those xml docs into maven ? Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc system we are moving to ? I would go with Maven only because it provides a number of usefull reports. I don't care for the standard Maven look, but believe it's better than what we have. My main concern is to make sure whatever we pick Maven/Forrest that it's around and thriving a year from now. maven is very active but they also seem to be going through a large refactoring to reduce the memory footprint. Forrest is supposed to be slower and a bigger memory foot print, but I could care unless about that if it doesn't crash my JVM. The struts site now builds with a basic maven look, maven beta 10. We just need to hook in the doc xml which shoudln't be too bad, since there is a stylesheet directory under xdocs. If you take a look at those wild and crazy Tapestry guys it looks like you can really hack the look and feel to anything you want. -Rob - 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]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
At 14:23 -0400 9/6/03, Robert Leland wrote: We can always start a struts-2 web site and tweak it until we like what we have, or until it works, which ever comes first ! I also wouldn't want to maintain a seperate look and feel except to move the blasted [powered by Maven] icon to the bottom of the page with other icons like in forrest. You can turn off the blasted icon by setting the property maven.xdoc.poweredby.image to an empty string (for instance, in the project.properties file. I've had trouble otherwise controlling the structure of that part of the generated docs (except the easy part of adding navigation.xml). Joe -- -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com If nature worked that way, the universe would crash all the time. --Jaron Lanier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Joe Germuska wrote: At 14:23 -0400 9/6/03, Robert Leland wrote: We can always start a struts-2 web site and tweak it until we like what we have, or until it works, which ever comes first ! I also wouldn't want to maintain a seperate look and feel except to move the blasted [powered by Maven] icon to the bottom of the page with other icons like in forrest. You can turn off the blasted icon by setting the property maven.xdoc.poweredby.image to an empty string (for instance, in the project.properties file. I've had trouble otherwise controlling the structure of that part of the generated docs (except the easy part of adding navigation.xml). Joe Joe: Thanks, I was hoping you would chime in ! It looks like you used maven for your site, and I prefer your color scheme over the standard... -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
+1 for only having to use one tool +1 for being able to customize LF I guess that makes me +1 for Maven, but that's qualified by the fact that I haven't used either so I don't know what bumps we'll hit down the road. As long as we can produce valid XHTML and customize the LF I'll be happy. Steve -Original Message- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 6, 2003 11:13 AM To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML] On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, David Graham wrote: Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 10:55:26 -0700 (PDT) From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML] --- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Leland wrote: Do we want to hold a formal vote/lazy consensus on what doc system we are moving to ? Don already put the Struts SourceForge site on Forrest, so I would lean in that direction. Does Forrest require that look and feel? If so, I'm -1 only because it doesn't match the new Jakarta look and feel. I think Struts should fit in with other Jakarta sites. Also, it seems like most other Jakarta projects are using Maven so maybe we should too. Strictly from the selfish point of view of a developer wanting to minimize how many tools I have to use, I'd prefer Maven over Forrest simply because it's also a build system. Or, to put it anothe way, using Maven as a build system will give us a website/docs publishing system for free. Visually, I'm not a huge fan of either system's default LF, but I don't dislike either of them enough to vote -1 on that basis. My understanding is that there is some room for customization with either, though, if we wanted to expend the effort to manage our own LF. The argument for consistency with other Jakarta subprojects is good in theory, but I don't see most Jakarta subproject websites using either yet -- at least for their pages on jakarta.apache.org. It would also not be an issue if we ever wanted to become a top-level Apache project (like Maven and Ant did), versus staying under Jakarta. David Craig - 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]
Re: Struts web site [was: Re: Conversion of web site docs to XHTML]
Craig R. McClanahan wrote: Or, to put it another way, using Maven as a build system will give us a website/docs publishing system for free. Well, last I knew, TANSTAAFL. =:) It's nice that Maven has a build system, so long as it's a build system that fits our needs. Likewise, it's nice that Maven has reports, so long as are they are reports our team will actually use. =:) I haven't tried it, so I'm not stating an opinion here, except TANSTAAFL. I have noticed that a lot of the Maven deployments do not seem to be using all the default features, giving the site an unfinished feel. This seems like a hint that Maven may be easier to deploy than to configure. Meanwhile, Maven itself is in perpetual beta, which hints that build and comprehension tools don't necessarily speed shipping times =:) (OK, like we should talk about long incubations.) I don't actually care, and, lacking a basis of comparison, I don't even know if what we have now is broken. Will Maven or Forrest be less work? If so, great. Personally, I don't care about the look and feel issues. It looks the way it looks. I just want to know if it will make better use of our volunteer time. The one thing I wouldn't want is people falling into FUD mode because at some point something might change. If someone wants to sign-up for migrating the site to Maven or Forrest, that would be great. But, a consensus without a working group starts to devolve into a roadblock. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
