Matt Dowell, a coworker of mine, wrote up a quickstart guide:
http://wiki.opensymphony.com/space/WebWork2+QuickStart+Guide
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Carreira
> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> I updat
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Jason Carreira
> Sent: den 9 januari 2003 15:50
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> I believe Joseph was attempting to be humorous.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rickard Öberg [
Aapo Laakkonen wrote:
I don't get it.
Can't you see the irony?
Well, I *could* see it as irony, but since it wasn't even remotely funny
it would be more like a sarcastic rant, and since Joe seems to want to
avoid things like that (given his recent new years benediction) it
didn't make sense
> I don't get it.
Can't you see the irony?
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
___
Opensymphony-webwo
I believe Joseph was attempting to be humorous.
> -Original Message-
> From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> Joseph Ottinger wrote:
&
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
He was probably offended by all the horrible negativity aimed at him on
#java.
What was said about him on #java?
I dunno, probably something like "Ken is supposed to be doing
documentation, which is really cool, esp. since he apparently has
exper
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, [ISO-8859-1] Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> > He was probably offended by all the horrible negativity aimed at him on
> > #java.
>
> What was said about him on #java?
I dunno, probably something like "Ken is supposed to be doing
documentation, which is really
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
He was probably offended by all the horrible negativity aimed at him on
#java.
What was said about him on #java?
/Rickard
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Some
He was probably offended by all the horrible negativity aimed at him on
#java.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Wayland Chan wrote:
> Whatever happened to Ken's effort at documentation? I
> haven't seen him on the list lately. Was wondering if
> he was still working on the docs or if he'd left the
> list/proj
Whatever happened to Ken's effort at documentation? I
haven't seen him on the list lately. Was wondering if
he was still working on the docs or if he'd left the
list/project.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
h
I think the concensus is that some documentation is better than none and
that discussing the ultimate xdoc system isn't constructive to getting
the deliverable done.
That's just my take on what I've seen lately.
again, I agree on he who docs the documentation decides how it's done but
eventually
> but remember - this is more like a book
Yep, so why not to go with LaTeX, FrameMaker, InDesign, Quark Xpress,
PageMaker or some other utility that suits better? Then just provide us
with PS and PDF, and maybe other file formats.
Some argue that we need to use simple format, so that anyone can e
'll make a perfectly
valid document according to the xml schema (which I already made yesterday).
Cool,
Ken
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Doc
ssage -
From: "Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> Despite the maven issues, no one responded to my last post to the
newsgroup
> which investigated so
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> Exactly. This documentation thread has gone on long enough, overall
> consensus seems to be a yes to xdocs, and an no to maven. The very fact
> that the 'simple mavenising' poste
Well maven appears to be a build system that replaces a lot of
functionality that ant already provides. I'd rather see maven
distributed as pre-defined ant build targets rather than it's own
system per se. I'm in the b/w camp re: maven and it's usefulness. but I
get an uncomfortable feeling eve
Exactly. This documentation thread has gone on long enough, overall
consensus seems to be a yes to xdocs, and an no to maven. The very fact
that the 'simple mavenising' posted on here says that one has to get
maven out of cvs is a winning argument against using it ;)
On Thursday, December 12, 2
Bill,
Agreed... we could keep the ant build as the official version, but put
project.xml and maven.xml in as well to test the waters.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:
> bit. I liked the xdoc format, however and was planning on using that
> regardless.
Ken,
Not sure if we are going to use Maven (Mike likes it, Rickard doesn't, I
sorta-like-it-sorta-hate-it). I'm sure everyone else out there falls
somewhere in one of those three categories. BUT, since you're goi
Hello,
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
Ken,
Personally I'd vote for xdocs without Maven at the moment, that gives us a
good upgrade path to Maven (if we decide to use it) or to any other XML
based doc format (as xdocs are XML files already).
Sure. However, why not check in the Maven project.x
Ken,
Just to clarify:
1) xdoc is good - it's simple and easy to use.
2) Adding 'bulk' to the build is fine, as long as it's still _simple_ to
build (ie downloading a JAR from CVS that's just 'used to build docs' is no
problem)
3) SiteMesh is used for the website presentation, not for the docs. Fo
reative and informational concerns
about a website rather than just the technical architecture concerns. I
just want to make sure we are all in agreement.
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, Dec
: Thursday, December 12, 2002 7:10 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP]
> > Sent: 12. desember 2002 12:38
> > To: [E
we are in agreement then =)
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
Ken,
Just to clarify:
1) xdoc is good - it's simple and e
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Hani Suleiman
> Sent: 12. desember 2002 12:52
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> I'm actually fairly strongly against maven
ized documentation.
>
>
>
> Of course, this is up to debate and if I¹m wrong here, that¹s okay too. I
> just want to do the best possible work for the project. That¹s really what
> this is all about :) Suggestions are always welcome.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
&
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
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP]
> Sent: 12. desember 2002 12:38
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Well, we have a few
leiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
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
Hani Suleiman wrote:
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
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 ha
Hi Mike,
Well, we have a few issues. I'm thinking about the big picture in that XML
some form of XSLT (or something else) is beneficial, but I also wanted to
stike a balance in that many people didn't want the bloated libraries to be
involved (or to be abstracted away from them if they were). Ma
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 pro
01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
I found that writing docs in straight HTML (using Dreamweaver) is _much_
quicker than setting up (or using an existing, in the case of WW) XML
DocBook installation and translation process. Basically, XML isn't
intuitive whe
Why not use IBM Bookmaster :) I wrote a whole manual with that once,
talk about painful!
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 04:31, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> How about using, oh, PF:Word then? That would rock and have a cool "gee,
> I'd forgotten that existed" factor. :)
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Robert Nicholso
PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> I haven't read the 40 other emails in this thread from today, so pardon me
> if this has already been said.
>
> I think XML -> XSLT -> HTML on the fly is overkill. I'd like to
r 2002 23:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> I think I'll look into this xdoc approach as I have not used it myself
> although I'm sure it's very similar. If it can do direct xml -> pdf
> generation with 'zer
riginal Message -
> From: "Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> > Everyone,
> >
> > Actually, what I actually wan
success.
>
> Regards,
> Ken Egervari
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork]
as I check it out for myself.
Regards,
Ken
- Original Message -
From: "Aslak Hellesoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> &g
inline...
--- Mike Cannon-Brookes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that the documentation should certainly be
> available out of the box.
>
> My experience is that, however, one needs to make
> documentation as simple as
> possible to write.
>
I agree somewhat. An easy form of sharing tip
IL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> I agree that the documentation should certainly be available out of the
box.
>
> My experience is that, however, one needs to make documentation as simple
as
&
> PS That said, he who wants to write the documentation gets to choose how
it
> is done.
Amen to that! Ken, please don't take any of our (my) comments as a negative
thing, I'm just giving you alternate feelings about various formats. But
yes, at the end of the day, it's all up to you -- you're the
ven these cases, then I'll
>> write them up in HTML. However, I think we'll be missing out on some key
>> advantages while I don't see any inherit problems with using XML (except
>> for
>> many it'll take a little longer to setup, but this won't be a
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Bill Burton
> Sent: 10. desember 2002 21:05
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Aslak Hellesoy wrote:
> >
inal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Simon Stewart
Sent: 10. desember 2002 19:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
On Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002, at 16:32 Europe/London, Ken Egervari
[eXtremePHP] wrote:
XSLT will also help us out if
on Stewart
> Sent: 10. desember 2002 19:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
>
>
> On Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002, at 16:32 Europe/London, Ken Egervari
> [eXtremePHP] wrote:
> >
> > XSLT will also help us out if the website presentation laye
On Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002, at 16:32 Europe/London, Ken Egervari
[eXtremePHP] wrote:
XSLT will also help us out if the website presentation layer changes
or when
we decide to compile the manual into a PDF document (which I really
hope we
do since PDF is a fantastic format for printing and offline
mentation scheme for all OS
projects, that way a distribution from OpenSymphony will always have the
same layout for libs, examples, docs, etc.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:47
Please be advised that the docs also make use of webwork jsp tags. Mostly it
seems to escape literal blocks that use jsp tags.
I don't understand why you can view the views-jsp.jsp without
commons-logging and log4j installed but you cannot view views-velocity.jsp
unless you have both jars in the c
"Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
I'll devise 2 stylesheets then. One to transform the document for local
viewing and another to make them look the s
How about using, oh, PF:Word then? That would rock and have a cool "gee,
I'd forgotten that existed" factor. :)
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Robert Nicholson wrote:
> A bit "No f'ing way" from me on the Word 2000 idea ;-)
>
> xsl:fo etc will allow you to generate a PDF .. I'm sure Ken knows how to get
>
A bit "No f'ing way" from me on the Word 2000 idea ;-)
xsl:fo etc will allow you to generate a PDF .. I'm sure Ken knows how to get
a PDF from XML.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Btw: is it apparent from reading the install docs that commons-logging.jar
is required?
- Original Message -
From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
&
rvari [eXtremePHP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> I'll devise 2 stylesheets then. One to transform the document for local
> viewing and another to make them look the same
From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> I found that writing docs in straight HTML (using Dreamweaver) is _much_
> quicker than setting up (or using an existi
get a product to
work.
> >>A lot of people would probably just give up.
> >>
> >>If you still think XML is a poor format to use given these cases, then
I'll
> >>write them up in HTML. However, I think we'll be missing out on some
key
> >>adva
nsure
compatibility with the current method while still going with XML+XSLT.
- Original Message -
From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> Well, they were changed
ginal Message -
From: "Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
Everyone,
Actually, what I actually wanted to do was combine all the forms of
documentation w
Well, they were changed to jsp, which is the worst of both worlds (require
processing, and single output format)
Quoting Rickard Öberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP] wrote:
> > Pat,
> > You think it's overkill? I rather like the simplicty of XML. I also
> have
> > used XSLT in
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
I think the docs should be a Word 2000 file. Or a PDF!
Ha ha, very funny...
/Rickard
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
I don't see any inherit problems with using XML (except
> > for
> > many it'll take a little longer to setup, but this won't be a problem).
> > Please let me know your thoughts.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > - Original Message -
>
Ken Egervari [eXtremePHP] wrote:
Pat,
You think it's overkill? I rather like the simplicty of XML. I also have
used XSLT in many solutions already and I wrote about too in one of my
books. Needless to say, I'm really confortable with it.
FWIW the docs used to be in DocBook. They changed to HT
I don't see any inherit problems with using XML (except
> for
> many it'll take a little longer to setup, but this won't be a problem).
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Ken
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EM
setup, but this won't be a problem).
Please let me know your thoughts.
Ken
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> Ken,
&g
ut with
> collaboration from all people involved, I'm sure we can make this work
> effectively. I look forward to spearheading these plans and I know they
> would help WebWork in many ways.
>
> Regards,
> Ken Egervari
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike
y Hede" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> Hi,
>
> I have been planning some documentation stuff as well, I started with a
> dummies guide:
>
> http://info-architects.net/webwo
t: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> Everyone,
>
> Actually, what I actually wanted to do was combine all the forms of
> documentation written by various people and consolidate it into a book
> fashion. That way it will be very e
ds,
Ken Egervari
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Documentation
> Toby,
>
> Great stuff - I've added a link to it from the Web
Toby,
Great stuff - I've added a link to it from the WebWork page on the wiki -
thanks!
Cheers,
Mike
On 10/12/02 2:40 PM, "Toby Hede" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
words:
> Hi,
>
> I have been planning some documentation stuff as well, I started with a
> dummies guide:
>
> http://info-archit
Hi,
I have been planning some documentation stuff as well, I started with a
dummies guide:
http://info-architects.net/webwork/fundamentals-dummies.html
And I need to get working on some other areas as well.
Toby
> Ken,
>
> Agreed - we greatfully appreciate any improvements to the documentati
Ken,
Agreed - we greatfully appreciate any improvements to the documentation!
Perhaps the best way you (or anyone - it's really easy!) can help out is
just to start documenting things on the Wiki
(http://www.opensymphony.com:8668). Anyone can sign up and write some extra
pages of information.
Th
Welcome to the project and kudos on a very well
written introduction of yourself.
Looking *very* forward to your contributions.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
---
I found this in my bookmarks today, maybe you can use some of it or contact
its author and collaborate?
http://enigmastation.com/~joeo/webwork.html
- Original Message -
From: "Toby Hede" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: [OS-webwor
74 matches
Mail list logo
