Hi Romain,
thx for your feedback! I'll answer each of your points:
1) will do, content was just ported over from the old mvn-based site
2) I chose hugo because its quite simple and has been around for long
enough for me to trust, we can of course decide to use some other static
site generator. hugo is not a hard choice
3) dont know about that, ideally this is stuff we build once and then
probably never touch again. I'm also a friend of keeping complexity low,
so i'd like to keep out any build steps of js/css. The only thing we're
really doing to the johnzon site is regenerating it when a new release
lands or edit markdown, so I'm not too worried
4) not too sure about that either, I think its okay to have it in a
different repo as it's not too closely related to johnzon source code.
All the other ASF projects im involved with also do it that way
5) thats because I built it with claude, not gonna deny that. I've
already taken attention to not have it look like any other website that
claude generates. Can you point out what specifically or in general
makes you feel that way? would really appreciate some more feedback to
get that worked out. I could think of the color palette and code snipped
boxes having that usual border radius right now. Also still not too sure
about that whole json object thing right on the index page
Thanks
Markus
On 8/11/26 18:18, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Looks good, here some insights if I would have to redo today:
1. (Minor) In snippets always close jsonb instances (or mapper), else
people tend to not do it and think we do leak ;)
2. Maybe not Hugo but a java and adoc based generator (jbake, minisite or a
like)
3. Maybe build assets (js and css), this rarely scales well with time
(portability, brosser support management, maintainability - human or token$)
4. Ensure it is integrated to the default build (2 helps there) otherwise
it is another decoralated project
5. Not sure where it comes from but thème is very claud-ish, maybe do
something more "us"?
That said it looks better than what we do have today
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog
<https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old
Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064>
Javaccino <https://javaccino.dev/> founder (Java/.NET service - contact via
linkedin)
Le mar. 11 août 2026, 16:39, Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]>
a écrit :
+1
Am Di., 11. Aug. 2026 um 16:32 Uhr schrieb Mark Struberg via dev <
[email protected]>:
looks really great. Go for it!
I think we should create a ticket for setting up the git repo for site
and
then just do it.
+1 from me for it.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 11.08.2026 um 16:22 schrieb Markus Jung <[email protected]>:
Hey all,
I'd like to propose rewriting the site. The current one pretty old, IMO
does not look good and is generated through maven which more often than
not
causes problems regenerating and publishing it since we don't do it very
often.
As an experiment I've rebuilt the site independent of maven on top of a
static html generator and gave it a more modern look, you can find a
deployed version here https://jungm.github.io/johnzon-site-proposal/,
source code would be on https://github.com/jungm/johnzon-site-proposal.
This also intentionally drops all reports maven injected into the site,
the
only thing remaining right now would be javadocs.
WDYT of this? Should we be redoing the site in general? Do you like the
proposal, would you change something or do it completely different?
Thanks
Markus
