However, we could easily convert to JSON for the published version of the
file.
Transformation to both formats are possible of course
It's really a question of which format is easiest to maintain.
XML of course.
Although JSON is simpler, it does not allow comments AFAIK, which I
think
That would probably be fine - I'd like to see it before endorsing it fully.
It would have been better to do it in a branch.
Agreed.
Actually there was so less comments (most of them positive) that I
didn't think about a branch.
The current half-finished changes have made it difficult for
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:58 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2011 02:02, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
sebb wrote:
Christian Grobmeier wrote:
I've not started looking at generating projects/index.xml yet.
Reading the past mails shows me you are +1 to commit the
On 10 October 2011 09:09, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:58 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2011 02:02, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
sebb wrote:
Christian Grobmeier wrote:
I've not started looking at generating
On 8 October 2011 05:25, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
Donald Whytock wrote:
sebb wrote:
There ought to be a tapestry.html file locally; may need to generate a
dummy one if the original cannot be recovered (or never existed).
Weird...there IS a Tapestry page:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2011 09:09, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:58 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2011 02:02, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
sebb wrote:
Christian
On 10 October 2011 12:18, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2011 09:09, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:58 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2011
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:57 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Thats exactly what I mean with a mess. Hope it clarifies a bit, b/c I
thought about it a pretty long time.
I agree that the LHS menu is confusing and messy, but for me, the RHS
list is simple and useful.
For me the RHS list is not
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:57 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Thats exactly what I mean with a mess. Hope it clarifies a bit, b/c I
thought about it a pretty long time.
I agree that the LHS menu is confusing
- 95+ visible links on a webpage visible navigation is a mess for me.
It's not much longer than the LHS navigation, and would be a similar
length if the non-project entries were removed as previously proposed.
It not about length. Its about confusion level. 40 links on the left,
40 on the
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, for you. Not me. I believe people coming from outside are confused
by this navigation too. Of course I cannot prove it, but all the
website I like have easier navigation.
So what's the use case for the RHS
On 8 October 2011 08:49, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 3:25 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 October 2011 02:08, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 October 2011 00:47, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Updated to use new format and committed.
I've not started looking at generating projects/index.xml yet.
Reading the past mails shows me you are +1 to commit the layout
changes. You are already working on the next steps :-)
I'm not keen on losing the RH podling list, if that's what you mean; I
think it's useful.
You was the only
On 9 October 2011 13:50, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
I've not started looking at generating projects/index.xml yet.
Reading the past mails shows me you are +1 to commit the layout
changes. You are already working on the next steps :-)
I'm not keen on losing the RH podling
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:14:39AM +0100, sebb wrote:
Although JSON is simpler, it does not allow comments AFAIK, which I
think rules it out as a suitable original source file.
For the record: indeed, JSON as spec'd in RFC 4627 does not allow comments.
Some parser implementations support
sebb wrote:
Christian Grobmeier wrote:
I've not started looking at generating projects/index.xml yet.
Reading the past mails shows me you are +1 to commit the layout
changes. You are already working on the next steps :-)
I'm not keen on losing the RH podling list, if that's what you
On 10 October 2011 02:02, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
sebb wrote:
Christian Grobmeier wrote:
I've not started looking at generating projects/index.xml yet.
Reading the past mails shows me you are +1 to commit the layout
changes. You are already working on the next steps
sebb wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
sebb wrote:
Christian Grobmeier wrote:
I have added my layout changes too (website not updated). We need to
find a consens on the rh table. I am still not a fan of this, it
simply ugly. We have spoken on this thread about generating some kind
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 3:25 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 October 2011 02:08, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 October 2011 00:47, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Updated to use new format and committed.
Output is to project-menu.tmp file currently; edit build.xml
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies. Forgot the status field.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay...attached is a very simple podlings.xml, made from the contents
of the podlings page.
I itemized
On 7 October 2011 10:03, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies. Forgot the status field.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay...attached is a very simple
On 7 October 2011 22:10, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2011 10:03, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies. Forgot the status field.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Donald Whytock
On 7 October 2011 22:23, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2011 22:10, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2011 10:03, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies. Forgot the status field.
On
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:10 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
However I think it would make sense to sort the entries by podling
name, rather than by name within status.
Otherwise it will be a pain when the status changes.
Also, rather than use a website tag, I think it would be better to
use
On 7 October 2011 23:09, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:10 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
However I think it would make sense to sort the entries by podling
name, rather than by name within status.
Otherwise it will be a pain when the status changes.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm now thinking it might be better to convert some of the tags to
attributes, for example:
podling name=Accumulo resource=accumulo status=current
These are all relatively short fields and I think it would make the
file shorter
On 8 October 2011 00:47, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm now thinking it might be better to convert some of the tags to
attributes, for example:
podling name=Accumulo resource=accumulo status=current
These are all
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:08 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be easier to edit and navigate if the attributes were all on
the same line as the podling tag
Yeah, that's the plan. I was just listing what attributes would be
there. I format the final file using XPontus. I forgot
On 8 October 2011 02:17, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:08 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be easier to edit and navigate if the attributes were all on
the same line as the podling tag
Yeah, that's the plan. I was just listing what attributes
On 8 October 2011 02:08, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 October 2011 00:47, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm now thinking it might be better to convert some of the tags to
attributes, for example:
podling
Donald Whytock wrote:
sebb wrote:
There ought to be a tapestry.html file locally; may need to generate a
dummy one if the original cannot be recovered (or never existed).
Weird...there IS a Tapestry page: http://tapestry.apache.org
The URL on the podling page is just wrong.
Latest
On 5 October 2011 20:06, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
What about storing the podling names in a table somewhere and using a
Javascript fragment to read the table and populate the right-column
list? Pages that include the script therefore don't have to be
updated at all when the
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:46 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 October 2011 20:06, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
What about storing the podling names in a table somewhere and using a
Javascript fragment to read the table and populate the right-column
list? Pages that include
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:46 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
The registry would contain all podling names (current and previous)
together with state (active, dormant, graduated, retired) and other
basic information.
This would be used to generate the podling summary page(s) as well.
Would
On 6 October 2011 22:03, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:46 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
The registry would contain all podling names (current and previous)
together with state (active, dormant, graduated, retired) and other
basic information.
This would
Hi,
currently we use a three column model. On the right side is the search
box, links to thanks page and all the projects listed. Everytime we
add a new podling all podling pages need to be updated too.
I we should remove the third (right) column, because:
- the thanks page is already linked on
Hi Christian!
your proposal makes IMHO incubator page more clear and let eyes
breathing while reading the page :)
Just my 0.02 cents, all the best!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com
On 10/5/2011 7:12 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
...
Here is how it would look like:
http://code.grobmeier.de/incubator-draft/
http://code.grobmeier.de/incubator-draft/projects/index.html
http://code.grobmeier.de/incubator-draft/projects/ognl.html
Please let me know what you think about this
On 5 October 2011 12:12, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
currently we use a three column model. On the right side is the search
box, links to thanks page and all the projects listed. Everytime we
add a new podling all podling pages need to be updated too.
I we should
The RH column is relatively narrow, so does not compress the main
column too much.
Cannot agree here
Indeed without it, the main column is too wide on my screen, making it
more difficult to read, as the end of the line is so far from the
beginning of the next.
I plan to work more on the
What about storing the podling names in a table somewhere and using a
Javascript fragment to read the table and populate the right-column
list? Pages that include the script therefore don't have to be
updated at all when the podling list changes.
Don
41 matches
Mail list logo
