Hi, All very valid points IMO. I'm not sure you need permissions to edit the confluence space, if you do, shout. Could also be nice if we had a jira issue for this, so that it appears in the change log. About generated pages, indeed, they are the *Plugin and *Tags pages (i.e http://xdoclet.codehaus.org/WebPlugin and http://xdoclet.codehaus.org/WebTags for instance). Note that "parent plugin pages" like http://xdoclet.codehaus.org/Web+plugin is also generated, but only when it doesn't exist yet, so these can be edited safely. Of course, suggestions for the generated pages templates are also welcome. I'd say these would require a specific jira issue, and you might even want to provide patches (plugin-plugin and plugin-qtags are the plugins generating those)
Cheers, g On 10/12/05, Greg Kerdemelidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can appreciate your perspective, Gregory. On my list in the short term is: > > On the coffee break intro - which is quite good: > > * Fill out the Generama page a little more (even just background info). > * Add another page which is tied to the QDox API - the classes and methods > available via the velocity template when you're working with the parsed java > model. Essentially a "cheat-sheet" for writing the plugin templates. > * Add some download link templates to the Your own plugin section. > > Generally: > > * Make some minor grammar edits. > * What's the story with the plugin docs? They're the main villains IMHO. The > QTags @foo.bar is kind-of amusing however. This would be the autogen, yes? > > I agree you shouldn't delegate documentation to someone you've never met (or > really even talked to) before - but my bluntness seems to have got the > conversation moving, right? > > +1 for agreeing on what needs to be worked on - but hey, I don't have a vote, > right. > > Essentially, my main dislike with the docs/site is that it doesn't feel > "cohesive" - I need to store a lot of links in favourites to get the > information I need - JavaClass definition in templates, things like that. > > XDoclet is a combination of technologies, and there's a danger that the > information changes due to changes in dependent projects - that's the risk I > guess. > > -Greg > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Grégory Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2005 2:24 a.m. > > To: dev@xdoclet.codehaus.org > > Subject: Re: [xdoclet-dev] Documentation > > > > Greg, > > > > On 09/12/05, Greg Kerdemelidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The documentation on the Codehaus XDoclet2 site is really bad guys. > > > > > > Do you want me to come through and try to flesh it out? > > > > > > > Yes, of course, any help is appreciated, but - and I don't mean to be > > aggressive - you might as well start by being constructive and point > > out where and what is "bad". We *do* realize it is *far* from perfect, > > mostly because noone has time or desire to work on it; however I don't > > think it is something we should "just delegate", so please let's > > discuss what improvements are needed before rushing into chaotic > > changes. > > > > (Besides, parts of the docs are totally generated, which you might not be > > aware) > > > > Cheers, > > > > g > > >
