Hi Erik,
I still don't understand what everyone means by "xml->xslt->html" is
overkill. The transformation process happens before the distribution
archives are made (I.e. I or someone will transform the documents into html
and PDF and will combine the xml documents, xslt style sheets and
distribu
Then have a look at this project which I have just started:
http://boss.bekk.no/boss/oslo/
You'll a link to the PDF in the upper right corner. It contains the same
information as the web site - minus the content in the web site that was
automatically generated by Maven (such as everything under P
I haven't read the 40 other emails in this thread from today, so pardon me
if this has already been said.
I think XML -> XSLT -> HTML on the fly is overkill. I'd like to see the
docs stored as XML and converted to HTML (through whatever means) at dist
time. I agree that straight HTML is better for
Ken,
By all means - knock yourself out!
If you can write proper documentation for WebWork, everyone will love you no
matter what technologies you use to write it ;)
Cheers,
Mike
On 11/12/02 9:06 AM, "Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP]" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned
the words:
> Hi Mike,
>
> To clarify, I
I think I'll look into this xdoc approach as I have not used it myself
although I'm sure it's very similar. If it can do direct xml -> pdf
generation with 'zero' code (in addition to formats like html), then I'm all
for that =)
I'll get back to you on this as I check it out for myself.
Regards,
inline...
--- Mike Cannon-Brookes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that the documentation should certainly be
> available out of the box.
>
> My experience is that, however, one needs to make
> documentation as simple as
> possible to write.
>
I agree somewhat. An easy form of sharing tip
Hi Mike,
To clarify, I was going to take the existing documentation and combine it
with all the work we already have in the WebWork Cookbook. Furthermore, I
was going to add-in a whole bunch of stuff to make it seem like a 'book'
with a single vision and style rather than seem like a set of diffe
This is something that should be remedied (the lesser support for Velocity
in WebWork, in terms of tags, is so easy to fix). I'll make sure this is
added to XWork as well (by Christmas!). Can someone send me the code (don't
Cc the list) for their homegrown velocity tags? Chris?
-Pat
- Origina
> I'm not sure if its necessary or not so you let me explain the problem.
> Lets say you have a multi-paged user profile service. After you submit a
> page, the destination success page depends on your current role (e.g.
> child vs. adult). How would you build that intelligence into a WW
> action
I'll make sure this is remedied in the 1.3 release I'm going to make today
(assuming no one objects).
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Log4j Logging Question
> Thi
> PS That said, he who wants to write the documentation gets to choose how
it
> is done.
Amen to that! Ken, please don't take any of our (my) comments as a negative
thing, I'm just giving you alternate feelings about various formats. But
yes, at the end of the day, it's all up to you -- you're the
I agree that the documentation should certainly be available out of the box.
My experience is that, however, one needs to make documentation as simple as
possible to write.
Look at how much documentation and knowledge the Wiki has created compared
to how much doco we had from people 'getting off
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Bill Burton
> Sent: 10. desember 2002 21:05
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Aslak Hellesoy wrote:
> > Why don't you write documentation in xdoc form
Kirk,
I am curious if it is possible to dynamically create and/or modify an
> action's view mappings for a particular request with WW?
I'm not sure if its necessary or not so you let me explain the problem.
> Lets say you have a multi-paged user profile service. After you submit
> a page, th
Heh, this thread sure did mutate today. Am I on TSS? :-)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Mike Cannon-Brookes
> Sent: 10. desember 2002 02:55
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Velocity or JSP?
>
>
> Aslak,
>
> Havin
Hello,
Aslak Hellesoy wrote:
Why don't you write documentation in xdoc format? This is basically XHTML,
augmented with 3-4 special tags. Then you can use Maven to generate HTML,
PDF, RTF, whatever.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. It's practically like writing HTML
but with simple tags for
Hello,
I am curious if it is possible to dynamically create and/or modify an action's view
mappings for a particular request with WW?
I'm not sure if its necessary or not so you let me explain the problem. Lets say you
have a multi-paged user profile service. After you submit a page, the dest
Why don't you write documentation in xdoc format? This is basically XHTML,
augmented with 3-4 special tags. Then you can use Maven to generate HTML,
PDF, RTF, whatever.
Aslak
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Simon Stewart
> Sent: 10
On Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002, at 16:32 Europe/London, Ken Egervari
[eXtremePHP] wrote:
XSLT will also help us out if the website presentation layer changes
or when
we decide to compile the manual into a PDF document (which I really
hope we
do since PDF is a fantastic format for printing and offline
hi pat
just a little wish...could you have a look at the webtable stuff I sent to
list and add it to the cvs so it comes also with 1.3?
btw: great redirect bug fix...now everything works also perfectly on bea
:-))
thanks!
cheers and good look for the xwork bet...
-paolo
>-Original Message
Pat,
Speaking of documentation and breathing new life in to WebWork, I wanted to
let you all know that I believe 1.3 is ready to be released. If there are no
objections or outstanding bugs, I will package up a release tonight. After
that, work can start on XWork.
That's fantastic - thanks for f
I'm not vehemently opposed to XML, I just personally don't like writing docs
in XML. I like to be able to see what I'm doing right away.
Can we use Ant's XSLT stuff without all the DocBook cruft? That would indeed
be much nicer.
My main objective is to have a standard documentation scheme for all
Me! Me! I'm 1 for 1 for bets recently! Oh wait...
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
> Speaking of documentation and breathing new life in to WebWork, I wanted to
> let you all know that I believe 1.3 is ready to be released. If there are no
> objections or outstanding bugs, I will pac
Speaking of documentation and breathing new life in to WebWork, I wanted to
let you all know that I believe 1.3 is ready to be released. If there are no
objections or outstanding bugs, I will package up a release tonight. After
that, work can start on XWork.
I have a bet with Mike that I can get a
Please be advised that the docs also make use of webwork jsp tags. Mostly it
seems to escape literal blocks that use jsp tags.
I don't understand why you can view the views-jsp.jsp without
commons-logging and log4j installed but you cannot view views-velocity.jsp
unless you have both jars in the c
Pat,
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Sitemesh can decorate HTML files, so why the jsp extension? The OSWorkflow
docs are all HTML. I really do think that HTML docs are the best bet. Makes
our life real simple -- plus including all the docbook crap in the CVS build
is never fun.
I agree with Ken - XML
How about using, oh, PF:Word then? That would rock and have a cool "gee,
I'd forgotten that existed" factor. :)
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Robert Nicholson wrote:
> A bit "No f'ing way" from me on the Word 2000 idea ;-)
>
> xsl:fo etc will allow you to generate a PDF .. I'm sure Ken knows how to get
>
A bit "No f'ing way" from me on the Word 2000 idea ;-)
xsl:fo etc will allow you to generate a PDF .. I'm sure Ken knows how to get
a PDF from XML.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Btw: is it apparent from reading the install docs that commons-logging.jar
is required?
- Original Message -
From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> I think that html for documen
Sitemesh can decorate HTML files, so why the jsp extension? The OSWorkflow
docs are all HTML. I really do think that HTML docs are the best bet. Makes
our life real simple -- plus including all the docbook crap in the CVS build
is never fun.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Egervari [
I really think we should look at the long term as the manual is a critical
piece of WebWork like any part of the code. The documentation is really no
different than refactoring code for instance - we refactor to improve the
design of our system for the long term so that our code is more manageable
I found that writing docs in straight HTML (using Dreamweaver) is _much_
quicker than setting up (or using an existing, in the case of WW) XML
DocBook installation and translation process. Basically, XML isn't intuitive
when it comes down to it. It may be better suited in the long run, but for
docu
I'll devise 2 stylesheets then. One to transform the document for local
viewing and another to make them look the same way they are now with the
.jsp extension for the website. This way, we can use sitemesh to decorate
one version and also have a local .html version. This will ensure
compatibili
I think that html for documentation is FAR superior to having jsp files or
anything that requires some sort of specialised server. The jsp files assume
you've managed to build and install webwork, when logically, the instructions to
do so would be part of the very docs you're trying to install!
A
Well, they were changed to jsp, which is the worst of both worlds (require
processing, and single output format)
Quoting Rickard Öberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP] wrote:
> > Pat,
> > You think it's overkill? I rather like the simplicty of XML. I also
> have
> > used XSLT in
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
I think the docs should be a Word 2000 file. Or a PDF!
Ha ha, very funny...
/Rickard
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
I think the docs should be a Word 2000 file. Or a PDF!
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Hani Suleiman wrote:
> I think that html for documentation is FAR superior to having jsp files or
> anything that requires some sort of specialised server. The jsp files assume
> you've managed to build and install webwor
Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP] wrote:
Pat,
You think it's overkill? I rather like the simplicty of XML. I also have
used XSLT in many solutions already and I wrote about too in one of my
books. Needless to say, I'm really confortable with it.
FWIW the docs used to be in DocBook. They changed to HT
I think that html for documentation is FAR superior to having jsp files or
anything that requires some sort of specialised server. The jsp files assume
you've managed to build and install webwork, when logically, the instructions to
do so would be part of the very docs you're trying to install!
So
Pat,
You think it's overkill? I rather like the simplicty of XML. I also have
used XSLT in many solutions already and I wrote about too in one of my
books. Needless to say, I'm really confortable with it.
XSLT will also help us out if the website presentation layer changes or when
we decide to
Robert Nicholson wrote:
Is this the same SiteVision that's on SourceForge?
Nope. It's a closed-source product from my new company, Senselogic.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
---
Is this the same SiteVision that's on SourceForge?
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECT
Ken,
I tend to prefer simple HTML documentation. XML -> XSLT -> HTML is overkill.
I nice batch of HTML files should suite us well.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:06 AM
Subject: Re:
Philipp Meier wrote:
I don't want to juge if the aproach of Rickard's product is the right
one as we don't knwo the whole motivation or constraints. But there is a
nice article on w3 on "Cool URIs don't change" which is worth reading:
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html
Interesting readin
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 08:32:03AM -0500, Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP] wrote:
> I have to agree with Robert. The 353.html approach, although easy to
> implement for the programmers, violates a lot of sound principles in
> information design. If you site is bookmarked and indexed by a search
> engin
Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP] wrote:
I have to agree with Robert. The 353.html approach, although easy to
implement for the programmers, violates a lot of sound principles in
information design. If you site is bookmarked and indexed by a search
engine, you are definitely going to have some problems
Robert Nicholson wrote:
Well I think it is a great idea ... akin to using surrogate keys for object
identifers. Are you using an authoring tool that generates those identifers
or do you generate them by hand? It is just a hexidecimal representation of
a large random number?
They're created by ou
Actually I like his idea for the reasons he outlined. I hope that this isn't
too offtopic for the list. But your point about band-aiding a bad design is
fair but I think his reasons for wanting the structure to be flexible now
are reasonable also. If you take a look at his sites I think it shows so
Hi all,
I'm wondering if there's a way to create a form that creates multiple
record in a table using an array of data object.
I'll try to explain. I've the need to create a invoice management form.
The rows of the invoice are copied from order rows.
The invoice row table is something like (inv
Well I think it is a great idea ... akin to using surrogate keys for object
identifers. Are you using an authoring tool that generates those identifers
or do you generate them by hand? It is just a hexidecimal representation of
a large random number?
BTW: Some the members of this list use IntelliJ
I have to agree with Robert. The 353.html approach, although easy to
implement for the programmers, violates a lot of sound principles in
information design. If you site is bookmarked and indexed by a search
engine, you are definitely going to have some problems (not to mention just
confusing the
Robert Nicholson wrote:
What information is encoded in those URLS and why are they so cryptic? I'm
just curoius about why you are using urls like that.
As I said, the URL is the .html. The reason is to allow
users to move pages around in the site structure without messing up
links and bookmark
What information is encoded in those URLS and why are they so cryptic? I'm
just curoius about why you are using urls like that.
- Original Message -
From: "Rickard Öberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Velocity
Philipp Meier wrote:
BTW, here's a couple of examples running our portal with WW+Velocity:
http://www.konj.se
http://www.helsingborgslasarett.se
It's all based on the Portlet API draft, and the portlets (each thing
you see on the page is a portlet) use Velocity or WW+Velocity.
I'm am just curio
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 07:48:16AM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> BTW, here's a couple of examples running our portal with WW+Velocity:
> http://www.konj.se
> http://www.helsingborgslasarett.se
>
> It's all based on the Portlet API draft, and the portlets (each thing
> you see on the page is a po
For me, when reading the documentation I want to see how it differs from
Struts. To me in order to get that message across you have to explain how
the ValueStack/EL is used within Webwork and how it's typically used in
applications and how actions can be chained together and why you'd want to
do th
Just a word about the documentation... I don't think it should actually be
written using webwork resources. I mean to read the documentation I
shouldn't have to have already got webwork up and running. It's like that
today for some of the JSPs in the online docs which work great online but
offline
Everyone,
Actually, what I actually wanted to do was combine all the forms of
documentation written by various people and consolidate it into a book
fashion. That way it will be very easy for someone to download a PDF file
or have the documentation html on their local machine.
I for one never kn
58 matches
Mail list logo
