[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3846?focusedWorklogId=755449&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-755449
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on TOMEE-3846:
-----------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 11/Apr/22 21:32
Start Date: 11/Apr/22 21:32
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: cesarhernandezgt commented on PR #37:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/tomee-site-generator/pull/37#issuecomment-1095587774
Thank you @sultan for the PR updates and @rzo1 for the review.
So awesome to see that the Windows issue was fixed!
> do we both need Jakarta EE 9.0 and 9.1 javadoc on site ? we totally can
but maybe 9.1 only is enough? what do you think ?
I would vote +1 for only 9.1. But my opinion is that this work/proposal can
be part of a new ticket to limit the scope of the current ticket to only
comparison page content.
I won't duplicate Richard's feedback, but the only table I don't fully
understand is why the first table [1] has some specifications when the full
list is already provided with major detail in the table: "Detailed list of
Jakarta EE and MicroProfile specifications".
You previously mentioned:
> so I thought some specs could be usefull. i selected them based on what
can help my students configure TomEE and Eclipse :
But I still don't get the problem this part of the table is solving. I used
Eclipse IDE and configuration steps for TomEE in Eclipse are documented here:
https://tomee.apache.org/latest/docs/tomee-and-eclipse.html. If your students
are creating projects from scratch, maybe a maven archetype could be better to
customize their project setup in terms of dependencies and version numbers.
[1]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 755449)
Time Spent: 3h 20m (was: 3h 10m)
> Inconsistence between tomee flavors comparison in website and actual jars
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TOMEE-3846
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3846
> Project: TomEE
> Issue Type: Documentation
> Components: Website
> Reporter: Gwénaël Ruelland
> Assignee: Gwénaël Ruelland
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 9.0.0-M8, 8.0.11
>
> Attachments: image-2022-03-02-08-56-58-642.png,
> image-2022-03-02-08-57-19-856.png, image-2022-03-02-08-58-10-952.png,
> image-2022-03-02-09-05-07-006.png, image-2022-03-02-09-05-49-069.png,
> image-2022-03-02-09-06-20-365.png, image-2022-03-02-09-10-30-996.png,
> image-2022-03-02-09-11-27-520.png, image-2022-03-02-11-59-07-000.png,
> image-2022-03-02-11-59-41-196.png, image-2022-03-02-12-19-25-319.png,
> image-2022-03-02-12-29-28-417.png, image-2022-03-02-12-54-57-355.png,
> image-2022-03-02-13-12-34-765.png, image-2022-03-03-16-02-35-432.png,
> image-2022-03-03-16-02-39-953.png, image-2022-03-03-16-03-35-130.png,
> image-2022-03-03-22-26-57-626.png, image-2022-03-11-10-45-51-121.png,
> image-2022-03-18-20-36-25-938.png, image-2022-03-25-11-18-14-708.png,
> image-2022-03-25-11-19-03-406.png, image-2022-03-26-11-41-27-229.png
>
> Time Spent: 3h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Website lets us believe that Plus flavor includes Plume flavor. which was the
> opposite for previous versions, and, Plume does includes eclipselink and
> mojarra, when Plus does not (and never did). now Plus includes batchee which
> Plume does not.
> These piece of information could be better transmitted to the website
> visitors.
> I had trouble figuring out why my java webapp was starting on Plume but not
> Plus. (because eclipselink is not in Plus)
> Questions : Is it intended to have Plus not containing Eclipselink while
> Plume not containing batchee ?
> if yes : update website
> if not : update poms
> 1) Current web site content (partial)
> !image-2022-03-02-08-56-58-642.png|width=815,height=95!
> [...]
> !image-2022-03-02-08-57-19-856.png|width=818,height=68!
> 2) Actual jars diff between flavors
> !image-2022-03-03-22-26-57-626.png|width=817,height=208!
> 3) Suggested website with 3 tables (listening to your comments)
> part (a) synthetic table
> part (b) functionalities
> part (c) implementations
> !image-2022-03-26-11-41-27-229.png|width=1029,height=1926!
> 5) capture of other attempt
> !image-2022-03-25-11-18-14-708.png|width=796,height=591!
> 6) older attempt
> !image-2022-03-18-20-36-25-938.png|width=964,height=1840!
> 6) capture of much older version
> !image-2022-03-02-09-05-07-006.png|width=816,height=597!
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
