Hi Markus, - on the style: I think it is way better and I totally support this flavor - on the "generator" I think we should maybe discuss a bit more, here are the criteria I'd consider -- Do we want to be multi version since we seems to start supporting 2 majors -> if so we might need something like antora to keep it simple to work on (local and remote, also enables to have the style in a dedicated repo as you like and the content in main branches (2.x and 1.x for example - to refine but you get the idea) -- I'm not sure how tomee got updated but no generated content must be in the repo, it must be generated and ignored in terms of "git" so either you pull the branch (potentially just one folder since now it is possible) and launch the generation or the option doesn't match I think. If this is the preferred way - not my "default" but not against, I would just emphasis that it must work very simply, we can assume you do setup a johnzon or apache server in ~/.m2/settings.xml and we copy a class like https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/component-runtime-testing/component-runtime-junit/src/main/java/org/talend/sdk/component/maven/MavenDecrypter.java (there are a tons over asf too) to be able to run the generator with the git creds and let jgit clone the repo - anything executing git is not a great option since it will depend the machine, versions and config so I wouldn't rely on it -- Do we want to release "latest" and "snapshot" doc (I'm for it), if so any commit can trigger a deployment and there is no real "broken" state - including the merge of the tag after the release
Personally I think that we don't need branch support and that jbake or minisite (or even a plain main with asciidoc-java or alike will do the job) is saner on the long run, a maven module enables to use frontend-maven-plugin to optimize frontend resources almost for free, this is what I would favor - but once again not blocking anything while "mvn watever-in-the-doc" works OOTB. 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 dim. 16 août 2026 à 16:42, Markus Jung <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi romain, > > updated my proposal now, think it looks a lot less claude-like now. WDYT? > > My main reason for my gut feeling to split it is that often site updates > are something that are being done post-release, when everything else is > already finalized. Its then when you notice something in the site is > wrong/broken and technically the site doesn’t match the release anymore > when fixing it, so I’d argue to just split it off to not have it hard > linked to a release. > Mabe we can do something like tomee does and create a docs/ folder in the > johnzon main repo that is being pulled in when generating the site? > > > Thanks > > Markus > > > On 12. Aug 2026, at 14:24, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > A few details to try to complete after your comments: > > > > 3. it is more about having an optimized (loading fast) and browser > friendly > > (compatible) site automatically rather than building, alternative is to > > build manually every month and sync manually but not sure we'll do it. to > > have done it a lot - and still doing for some $$ stuff, manual css and js > > is rarely really portable nor optimized (loading) so worth doing due to > the > > length we reach in the poc > > 4. one reason is to generate part of the doc like the list of converters > or > > supported mapping, always worth having a complete up to date doc IMHO and > > ensure when you update code you sync the doc (in the same PR) but maybe > my > > habit > > 5. this it loaded the default frontend skill which is shared "by default" > > with every users, something more apache pointing to apache org/shared > sites > > can help maybe? dont think we want a johnzon specific identity but apache > > can be a neutral option, wdyt? > > > > 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 mer. 12 août 2026 à 09:02, Markus Jung <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > >> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >
