On 22 April 2018 at 10:57, Jan Iversen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 22 Apr 2018, at 11:33, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 22 April 2018 at 09:54, Jan Iversen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 10:17, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 21 April 2018 at 12:57, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>>> After having studied the solution proposed by Sebb, I have decided to add >>>>> my proposal again. >>>>> >>>>> My proposal has one outstanding TODO: >>>>> - add a .htaccess to projects that catches * and redirect to >>>>> attic.js?<project> >>>> >>>> That needs testing to ensure it works properly. >>> Just as with your solution, testing is always needed. That is the reason I >>> did not touch any production files, but added test.html >> >> For proper comparison I think we need to see the whole solution. >> This will obviously have to be done so that it does not impact the live site. > I believe the sample I have made with test.html and generation of all project > files are sufficient. No need to waste more time on that. Time saving is > important to me, and it does not make sense to waste resources on making two > complete solutions just to scrap one of them.
I am not convinced that your solution works for all the existing pages and for retaining URLs. > The real key here which person will do the maintenance in the future. Indeed. > As the person who have done the maintenance in the past and if nothing > changes will continue to do so, I believe it is fair to make a system that > makes my life easier. If of course needs to be a system, that can be easy > handled in case I need a substitute. In the case I am not supposed to do the > maintenance in the future my opinions carry a lot less weight. I have also done some of the Attic work (e.g. I recovered the missing Jakarta sites from the Internet Archive) but have not done any recently. I am not trying to make your work harder, but I am trying to come up with a solution that is externally compatible (no broken URLs, no missing information) and which is easy to maintain. >> >> Which is why I created the branch; this contains everything needed to >> set up the website. >> I have been able to test it locally. > Well you can also test it live, as I do www.attic.org/test.html > <http://www.attic.org/test.html> I meant that one needs to test all the pages and the redirect. The existing test only works for one static page (i.e. the home page). >> >>>> >>>>> - change attic.js to use project name instead of a number >>>>> Apart from that my solution is working, and seen from the outside the >>>>> Attic site is identical, responding to the same url as before. >>>> >>>> Apart from: >>>> The non-project HTML file resolution.html does not use the new list of >>>> projects >>> It will, look in test.html then you can see how that will be done in the >>> production files that non-project. >>> >>>> The project/* files don't allow for additional info such as is present >>>> in some of the existing XML files >>> It actually does, just add that information to the description field. >> >> OK, so try that with Taglibs. > Quite hard to do, as we do not have Taglibs as a retired project. I meant Jakarta Taglibs http://attic.apache.org/projects/jakarta-taglibs.html >> >>> >>>> The site does not work if a client does not support Javascript >>> Correct, but nowadays that is hardly a problem. >> >> We still need to support such clients. > I beg to differ. We also do not support all old browser applications (like > the ones who only support HTML 1), somewhere you have to set a limit. HTML 1 is a strawman argument. At the very least the user needs to be told that there is missing information if they don't have Javascript. > rgds > Jan I. > >> >>>> >>>>> The proposal from Sebb, involves new technology (Jekyll, YAML, bot) as >>>>> well as a markdown file pr project and are also working. >>>>> >>>>> Can we please have an open discussion to choose between these 2 variants >>>>> and if needed (which I hope we can avoid) a vote. >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> My pow: >>>>> >>>>> JS is not the best solution I preferred PHP, but needed in order to have >>>>> a static server side. The JSON embedded in attic.js is valid json, and >>>>> easy to extract with a simple sed, should anybody need it. >>>>> >>>>> The solution from Sebb introduces a number of new technologies, and adds >>>>> a bot that runs and eat resources. >>>>> >>>>> As the one who have done the maintenance the last year, I look for a >>>>> solution where we update a single file, and avoid complications (like >>>>> looking after a build job). >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> >>>>> Please add your comments and let aim at making a decision this month. >>>>> >>>>> Have a nice weekend >>>>> rgds >>>>> Jan I. >
