I have thought of three guides to write, but am not sure if they would be helpful, or which to do first. Any suggestions?
* Multiple Site Howto -- How to organize classes and actions so that a single turbine instance can serve multiple sites that may need to share common functionality * Service Howto/Introduction -- What services are, why they are nice, and how to write them * Non TDK Howto -- I found the TDK confusing because it did a bunch of stuff that I didn't necessarily want. So I learned about Turbine by removing everything, and putting it back in as I needed it. This document would be a "tour" in the form of setting up an example app without using the TDK. Thanks, Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Eade [mailto:seade@;backstagetech.com.au] > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:03 PM > To: turbine-user > Subject: Documentation (was: Re: Thanks) > > > I had planned to conduct a review of the t2.2 documentation to > come up with > a list of things that need to be done to bring things up to scratch. > Unfortunately I am just too snowed under at the present to get to this. > > I would be surprised (somewhat pleasantly) if someone steps > forward to take > up the challenge of bringing the documentation up-to-date. There are also > other issues that need to be considered, in particular I don't believe the > steps involved in extending the turbine schema have even been fully > developed (anecdotal evidence indicates that several users have attempted > this to varying degrees of success). > > I think the best improvement we can hope for in the short term is for > specific incremental enhancements to existing documents to correct errors > and omissions. These could be posted to the list or better still > posted as > patches to the existing xdoc files. Updating the xdocs and producing the > patches can be a little intimidating at first, but it is pretty simple. I > am happy to process documentation suggestions from email through > to patches, > so if you want you can post a message to the list something like: > > The ultimate solution to my problem was ... My life would have > been much easier if the ... document included the following text > just above/just below/replacing ... > > ... New or replacement text ... > > I don't think we can expect someone to just step forward and solve this > problem. We ALL need to make contributions to achieve the > desired outcome. > > I am not complaining about your rant, but if you could direct a similar > amount of energy to providing a small update to the existing documentation > that covered the issue at hand then we would be on our way. > > Documentation patches are welcome. I will also try and assist by > processing > documentation suggestions contained in email messages through to patches. > > Cheers, > > Scott > -- > Scott Eade > Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. > http://www.backstagetech.com.au > > > > From: "Mitch Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: "Turbine Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:36:44 -0800 > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: FW: Thanks > > > > A lot of people are pulling out a lot of hair over Turbine. > Turbine is a > > great framework that *needs* to exist (I can find no reasonable > > alternative). Unfortunately, it is so poorly documented that many folks > > simply walk away after struggling with it. > > > > You can measure this by the number of "Hi, I'm trying to get > Turbine working > > but I keep getting an XXX error..." postings that come across, > and the user > > is never to be heard from again. > > > > Isn't there anyone out there that can spend a little time > cleaning up the > > documentation for Turbine? > > > > Right now, what Turbine needs is documentation, not new > features. If anyone > > has attempted to extend the turbine schema in any way, or use Intake for > > that matter. They quickly realize that it can be an exercise in > > frustration, admittedly offset somewhat by the elation you feel when you > > finally figure out (after days of searching) what could have > been documented > > in a couple of hours. > > > > I'm not being critical, it's just that I sympathize with Bill. > > > > The bottom line is that I believe that Turbine should be > amassing a larger > > user audience than it has (based on posting volumes to this > group), and I'm > > not sure how much longer Turbine can survive without legitimate > > documentation. (And I really think Turbine should survive) > > > > Sorry for the rant. > > > > -Mitch > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill [mailto:bhalpin@;collaborativefusion.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:46 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Thanks > > > > > > The TRP.action.login option was totally the problem!!!! Thank you so > > much, I've been pulling my hair out over this. :) > > > > -b > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:turbine-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:turbine-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
