Danny,
I would assume that james-site would be something like:
james-site/
src/
xdocs/
www/
www/
javadocs-<version>/
That list is incomplete, and subject to change.
The salient point is that all files that make up the web site would be
stored in that module, except for the javadoc sources (i.e., java source
code), and any other product specific (x)docs. During site building, files
generated from the latter would be published into the the www/ subdirectory
of the james-site module. At your instigation, I am showing the generated
javadocs as going into a version specific directory. Similar for any other
version specific contents.
The src/www/ directory would hold non-generated files that go into the www/
structure, e.g., images/, .htaccess, KEYS, HEADER.html, etc. That separates
them from the xdocs structure, and allows is to do a clean build of the www/
structure.
Is this a starting point from which to tweak?
--- Noel
------------------
Danny Angus wrote:
> Noel asked:
> > What is our consensus on requesting a james-site module?
Well I'm +1 considering the following..
We'd then need to come up with seperate processes to build james-docs and
the web-site.
If the web-site uses james' xdocs, but processes them differently, OK, if
its going to mean having two copies of xdocs then No Way.
If we could arrange for the web-site to be built from web-site xdocs, plus
the xdocs and javadocs from the stable branches/tags of the latest released
versions of James and Mailet, then the html commited to the website module,
then big +1.
IMO product docs should be versioned with the source code, so they get
tagged, branched and distributed without extra steps to remember.
IMFO product docs and website should be intersecting sets, not set & subset,
and both have different requirements WRT layout & style.
d.
