On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think J2G should stay listed as a "Tool". Anything that requires a > developer tool like Eclipse in-order to use it, should be called a tool. > I half agree with what you're saying. Part of me does want J2G to be in the tools section, because it does belong there. I also think it belongs in our migration section, though, and I don't think it's a good idea to put it in both. In my mind, people that are looking for a way to migrate to geronimo are much more likely to look in a section labeled migration rather than the tool section. I'm afraid users will miss it if it's left in the tools section. I suppose I could put it back in the tools section and then we could add a link to it from the migration section. I kind of wish I had thought of that earlier as it's a pretty simple solution. I'm going to wait for a response until doing that, though. > > I always view a "Migration" section in a product's docs as how to > migrate from prior releases, whereas migrating from other vendors > products is complicated enough to deserve its own set of docs, samples > and tutorials. > I'm not sure what you're saying here. I think the migration section is fairly explicit in that it is for migrating an app to Apache Geronimo. Were you looking to separate it into a whole new document that isn't included in the documentation? > > > -Donald > > > Jason Warner wrote: > > I was looking at transferring the J2G documentation over from 2.0 to 2.1 > > and I noticed that j2g is listed under tools rather than a migration > > heading. Are we not going to have a Migration heading? I'd prefer to > > put the tool under something more descriptive so that it really jumps > > out to a user. Also, there were some migration sample documents that > > are now left homeless. I guess I'm wondering if we should bring back > > the migration heading. Thoughts anyone? > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Lin Sun wrote: > > > Hi Hernan, I looked at the index you put out there and I think it > is > > > very good! I cannot wait for these contents to be filled to > > > understand a bit more about these exciting 2.1 new features!! > > > > > > I think it'll be useful to add a FAQ or troubleshooting section. > I > > > hope this can be the first place for a user to look at whenever > they > > > run into some probs/exceptions. The content can grow based on > the > > > questions we get on the user list. > > > > At some point we had a Troubleshooting section, maybe I forgot to > > bring the title over 2.1 doc. I just added the entry on the User's > > guide side. > > Ideally the Troubleshooting section should be a subset, an excerpt > > of some of the other areas already covered. I personally think of > > Troubleshooting section more like a convenience section. > > > > Agree with you that ultimately we want to address every single > > question from the user list. Hernan's view of the world!? if a user > > have an issue doing a task on Geronimo that means that A) G is not > > intuitive enough, B) we don't provide enough documentation on how to > > perform such task, C) we do have that info but it is a secret well > > kept and only a few know about it ;-) , D) all of the above. > > > > With that said, tackling an issue on the Troubleshooting section is > > a great start but we shouldn't stop there ;-) > > > > > > > > Also, I think the sample application and tutorial sections are a > bit > > > confusion. First I look at the sample application and saw we > only > > > have 2 down there but then I realized most of the samples are in > the > > > tutorial section. > > > > The User's guide on the left is somewhat a carry over of topics from > > 2.0. For 2.1 I brought back the idea of the Developer's guide and > > put the Tutorials section there in contrast with Samples section > > from the User's guide. If you look at the Tutorials you'll see there > > is a different approach, it is more aligned with developing > > applications with GEP for instance, hence the location on the > > Developer's guide. > > > > Sample applications could end up being renamed to just Samples as it > > included some sample configurations as well. > > > > Either way, The doc is still on its early stages and this may change > > as we continue to develop the content. > > > > As usual, comments, new ideas and most definitively doc > > contributions are always welcome > > > > > > Cheers! > > Hernan > > > > > > > > Lin > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Hernan Cunico > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > >> Hey Kevan, Thanks for updating the doc. > > >> > > >> I thought it would be useful for the users to know what > > versions are we using for the components/projects that make Geronimo > > v2.1 > > >> For example, what version of Tomcat, Jetty, Derby, Axis... > > >> > > >> It would even help us to keep track of the components and > > versions, all in one place. > > >> > > >> Maybe this info could later on live on the Geronimo > > architecture section. Once we have the info it's easier to move. > > >> > > >> Cheers! > > >> Hernan > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Kevan Miller wrote: > > >> > > > >> > On Jan 28, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Hi All, > > >> >> these are some of the topics I think we should cover for the > 2.1 > > >> >> documentation. It is not a full list so we need your help to > > make it > > >> >> as complete as possible. Pls chime in with the topics you > > would like > > >> >> to see addressed in the documentation. > > >> >> > > >> >> * What's new in 2.1? > > >> >> ** New features > > >> >> ** Component versions > > >> >> ** Configuration changes > > >> >> ** Backwards compatibility > > >> > > > >> > Hernan, > > >> > I've fleshed out the "New Features" a bit in cwiki. Can you > > explain what > > >> > you meant by "Component versions"? > > >> > > > >> > --kevan > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~Jason Warner > -- ~Jason Warner
