OK - let me reply to this one differently :) As for Maven, producing a website is to me one of the minor features. It is a fantastic build system, but I agree it is too 'rough' at the moment for use on a project like WebWork.
I was merely suggesting xdoc as a format as it is simple, and does what we need for now. If we do use Maven in the future, upgrading to that is easy. As for being a lemming? I think that's totally out of context. I've been using Maven for two weeks now, and (while still _very_ rough - don't get me wrong) it has greatly improved the way we build our software. Does Maven add 'bulk' to WebWork? No. Would it add extra depenedncies? Course not. Would it make it harder to build? Well, if you have Maven installed - no. (But you have Ant installed already right - this is just the same) Is it for Webwork now? No - it is still too alpha IMHO. That's why I said in the future, perhaps I should have underlined 'possibly'. -mike On 12/12/02 10:52 PM, "Hani Suleiman" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words: > I'm actually fairly strongly against maven. It's a huge project, and > almost all of the websites produced by it have a cookie cutter feel to > it. I also disagree with it being 'the way of the future'. It might be > a fashionable choice for many OSS projects, but so are a lot of other > things that have little beyond 'coolness' factor attached. > > I have no objections to xdocs, as it'd actually be a useful relevant > tool for the point at hand. Bringing in maven just to use xdocs though > is like buying a house with toolshed attached when all you wanted is a > screwdriver. > > It's not a case of 'not invented here', it's a case of 'not jumping off > the same lemming cliff that everyone else does, just because everyone > else is'. A severe example of this is xdoclet. It's a great tool, I use > it and rely on it completely. However, whenever I've tried working on > bits of it to improve/contribute, I throw my arms up and give up, > because it's so damn unwieldy. Having to installl maven just to read > the cvs docs makes me very suspicious. Heck, someone even thought it > necessary to internationalise the build messages! Featuritis gone mad, > from where I stand (sorry Aslak!). > > Webwork's beauty to me is precisely because I don't have to commit to > 20 other jars just to get trivial stuff to happen. While that too might > be 'the way of the future' (if you consider the future to be jakarta > projects + jakarta project wannabes), it'd be a sad day for webwork to > conform to that particular wave. > > I know this argument has come up before, and I hope this thread doesn't > degenerate into another flamefest (hilarious as I found the last one). > So please take my comments for what they are; a heartfelt plea from the > webwork user/occasional contributor gallery. > > On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 06:03 AM, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: > >> Ken, >> >> You bring up a lot of interesting things here, I¹ll try to reply below >> (note: I¹m far from a documentation expert). >> >>> Well, I've been looking at a bunch of technologies that we can use to >>> build >>> the documentation, but I'm not convinced that Maven will help us. >>> Maven is an >>> interesting project in that it does a hundred different things, but >>> in terms >>> of simplicity and the information available on the website, it's not >>> there. I >>> think the documentation generation features are not nearly as >>> important in the >>> developer's minds in comparison to the project information, tools to >>> simplify >>> build/test cycles and all the other stuff it does. It also seems to >>> integrate >>> with Turbine and all these other frameworks that I didn't know exist. >>> I think >>> if people were worried about bloating this part of the project with a >>> tool >>> like Xalan, then they would definitely have some pretty strong >>> opinion to not >>> using Maven (I think I agree with them). Since we aren't using Maven >>> for it's >>> other strengths, it's kind of clumsy to start using it for >>> documentation now >>> when simpler solutions make more sense. >> >> I think people suggested Maven because it's 'the way of the future'. >> We have >> just started to use it at work, and it is fantastic once you get it >> running. >> As far as producing 'simple' documentation, it is very good. It uses >> xdoc >> from Apache, which would be my preferred way to generate the >> documentation >> (it's very simple, and 'mere mortals' can actually use it to write!). >> >>> I seriously think simple tools like Xalan are more than enough because >>> everyone probably has them in their classpath already, but I'm >>> looking into >>> Cocoon and Forrest right now (I'll put up another post to the >>> newsgroup about >>> my opinions on those) to see if they can simplify the required >>> plumbing. >> >> Cocoon and Forrest are huge overkill here I feel. >> >>> I'm much more interested in offline documentation generation where I >>> can >>> simply include the static documents, the PDF files and the source >>> code to >>> build all of that (rather than include the necessary targets in the >>> build.xml). It doesn't make much sense to have every person in >>> WebWork have >>> these documentation generation tools on their computer right now >>> since we >>> haven't rolled out the documentation yet. I would only include the >>> documentation generation code and jars into the build.xml when we have >>> something we are happy with. >> >> Well, I'm quite sure WebWork will end up using Maven after 1.3 (ie in >> the >> next few months), so using it to build documentation probably makes >> sense >> there. As for simplicity, it couldn't be easier to generate 'maven >> doc' :) >> >>> iText was another library I was thinking about using due to its >>> simplicity and >>> flexibility. I'd need to code a few Java classes to convert the xml >>> document >>> to PDF, but this wouldn't take more than a day. Again, I would only >>> do this >>> just so we wouldn't need a full-blown framework like Cocoon or >>> Forrest. Like >>> others have said, it's not a good idea to have Webwork developers or >>> the user >>> base that compiles from the source to be dependant on Cocoon or >>> Forrest and I >>> agree with that. I'd like to look into them anyway just so I know >>> for myself >>> how they work. If one of them will truly make our job much simpler >>> to the >>> point where I don't have to write a line of Java code, then I'll >>> consider >>> them. Otherwise, I don't see the point to use them. >> >> Gah! Let's not fall into the 'not invented here' syndrome, surely we >> don't >> need to write any tools to do this. >> >> This is why people suggested HTML, it's much _simpler_! :) >> >> The point is, surely the tools are an ancilliary issue? It's fairly >> trivial >> to move between tools at any time (half an hour of copy / paste at the >> most). Let's concentrate on the big issues! >> >>> Since the documentation is going to be static pages, I'll have to >>> redesign the >>> layout of the documentation obviously. This means that the left-side >>> will be >>> a little different to accommodate the documentation while I'll >>> probably keep >>> the top bar very similar. We also need to coordinate integrating >>> this on the >>> www.opensymphony.com <http://www.opensymphony.com> website as well >>> as it >>> won't use sitemesh or whatever other gadgets the site is using now. >>> These >>> issues aren't a huge rush, but we could begin to talk about them. >> >> Well, that's the beauty of SiteMesh - just drop the documentation in >> and it >> will be decorated automatically. The actual HTML produced should be >> _very_ >> simple, and use CSS to style everything. That way we can reuse it in >> many >> places. >> >> Again - concentrate on the bigger issues of writing it, adding / >> moving a >> logo is trivial! >> >> Good thoughts though all of them - it's great to have someone thinking >> about >> it. My advice, let's start simple and just get things down first - we >> can >> worry about the details of the layout / tools later? >> >> -mike >> >>> Regards, >>> Ken Egervari >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This sf.net email is sponsored by: >> With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility >> Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel >> http://hpc.devchannel.org/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by: > With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility > Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel > http://hpc.devchannel.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
