Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?

[Ross Gardler]

Gav.... wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: David Crossley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2006 10:41 AM
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?

Gav.... wrote:

The other side effect of being a dev - and could also apply to user too
maybe to a certain extent, joining the 'Forrest' Dev list was the first
Step - in reality to even begin to get beneath the engine of this baby,
involves joining more mailing lists of other communities in order to
understand, extend, and manage all aspects of Forrest. Being on the one
List simply is not good enough these days if one is to familarise

yourself

with all aspects of Forrest.
As a result of joining Forrest, I am also on the dev lists at 'Abdera' ,
'Cocoon' , 'Lenya' , 'Gump' , 'Chaperon' , 'Daisy' , 'XSL (mulburytech)'

,

'Heraldry' , 'Jira' , 'Subversion' , 'Maven'.

Ok, so 3 or 4 of those are not needed, but do give a better overall
understanding of the whole picture - and these all were '..as a result

of

..'

And I don't mind, I'm not complaining, it is encouraged to x-commune and

get

and give help, the point is I think that so many lists is living proof

that

Forrest is indeed a complex beast - at least in terms of what

functionality

is provided at the end of it.

This is not true. Forrest developers do not need to
join other mailing lists to do advanced Forrest.

Take me for example. Out of your list of 11 above,
i only subscribe to one: dev at cocoon, and even that
is not necessary to understand Forrest. Following their
documentation, then asking questions in context at the
Forrest lists is sufficient.

(I do do gump, but that is not because of Forrest.)

You will burn yourself out by joining so many.


Ok, I 'perceived' this a while ago to be an unwritten requirement for a dev
- in order to more fully understand the goings on under the bonnet. I don't
Really contribute much to these lists but I do skim through and read those
That could be relevant to Forrest, and search them occasionally when an
Appropriate issue arises. I guess I don't like 'black boxes' .

David is correct that it is not necessary to join those lists to use 
Forrest. But if you want to do anything non-trivial then it is necessary 
to understand some of the underlying technologies that Gav refers too. 
This is the kind of complexity I am talking about - we just don't need 
it to achieve what we are trying to achieve.

Ross