On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Maurice Parker wrote: > Joseph, > > >I don't know why; I've certainly posted early versions of it to the lists. > > > Because for a long time I wasn't reading the lists. My bad. > > We do need some kind of community page to make this, Mikes ramblings, > blog entries, etc... available. Maybe like Patrick mentioned a Wiki or > I would prefer a forum with perpetual or sticky threads.
Well, given that the editorial tone on this document is a bit snarky (on purpose, mind you) I'm not sure I'd *want* this document in the distribution. It really addresses basic holes in the, erm, basic docs, and should be addressed there instead of as a second- or third-party contribution. > >view, I'm afraid my comment was dead on. I certainly tried to start a > >documentation effort; I've gotten -0- support on it (despite being clearly > >not the expert, if you've read that document). > Looks like Toby would be willing to help out. *nod* Although, as stated, fixing a lot of the issues requires a little bit more correction in the source tree (the skeleton app is a good start for the idea, and Justin Stepka's skeleton app at http://www.hoderi.com is *excellent* IMHO). I don't think I should be the one to really address the docs; I'm not a technical writer of any skill whatsoever, I'm prone to editorializing, and I'm just as myopic about tech issues as everyone else seems to be. > >The comments I've gotten on that document have been surprisingly positive, > >far more so than I expected. For some users, it was like a "raise your > >fist and yell" thing, judging by their email. One user asked why we > >couldn't fix WebWork. (I left most of those with a simple "Thank you for > >your comments," by the way.) > > > Let's try to get these kinds of docs where people can find them. With > the distribution. See above comment about how I don't think this doc should exist at all in any form resembling what it is right now. > >That document was meant for a few things: one was to give an easier > >learning curve for newbies, maybe. Another was to goad, and maybe give > >what *I* thought was one angle to documenting things for newbies (another > >email I got about it was dead on: it makes a LOT of assumptions about the > >knowledge of the reader. If the reader understands MVC but doesn't grok > >webwork, they'll be fine; if the reader isn't really familiar with MVC, > >they're gonna be just as lost.) > Should we point someone to an MVC pattern dco or write one ourselves. I think both, actually: "Here's what MVC means, and here's how we designed it and why we made the design choices we did." I'll be glad to add information about my failed (well, far-less-efficient) structure if that illustrates anything useful. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
