I just wanted to keep the document in laymans terms as possible. Less
experienced developers should be able to set up and use struts without
getting lost in jargon and tech-talk. We just want them to participate
because that increases Strut's user base and thus development effort. We
should add MVC to this information somehow. However, for readers who are
not experienced with oo patterns or architectures, such information can
leave the individual feeling overwhelmed with information. I can do a piece
on MVC which can tie in Craig's documentation with the documentation I
previosly submitted.
What would you like to do Craig?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: *TED* - round 2 of documentation
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Jonathan wrote:
>
> > Absolutely not. The user guide was really well written this time
around.
> > Kudos to Craig and others who wrote it. I think it should be one of the
> > first things you read about Struts because it gets you there quick. I
think
> > it belongs somewhere with the user guide =)
> >
>
> Perhaps this might be a "Welcome To Struts" or "What Is Struts" document
> that someone would read *before* reading the user guide? As someone else
> mentioned, maybe we could think of it as a "Product Data Sheet" type
> document.
>
> If so, I think it needs to include at least something like the "MVC
> Architecture" picture to visually clue people how the pieces fit together.
>
> Craig
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 8:51 AM
> > Subject: Re: *TED* - round 2 of documentation
> >
> >
> > > I don't disagree Jonathan. I'm just asking for suggestions as to where
> > > we should place it in the context of the rest of the documentation.
> > > Should it be part of the User Guide or something else? If something
> > > else, what do we call it?
> > >
> > > Unless of course you're proposing that we drop the rest of the User
> > > Guide and just offer this ;-0
> > >
> > > Jonathan Asbell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Ted. I gave this documentation to the other developers in my
> > group
> > > > who do not know about Struts, and they said that they now understand
> > what
> > > > Struts is and how to approach using it. They got lost in the
"Struts
> > > > Components" section because they didnt have a picture to accompany
the
> > > > explanation, and because they were unfamiliar with Struts. They
said
> > that
> > > > the section "How it all works" clarified how Struts behaves.
> > > > The point being that the impedance from trying new tools lies in
the
> > > > time necessary to understand and configure it. Living in New York
is
> > great
> > > > because it is the ultimate test for when something is too
complicated:
> > > > People wont take the time to use it. This type of outline gets
would be
> > > > users/developers started quick. In a few pages they know what
Struts
> > is,
> > > > what it needs to run, and how it functions. Now they can go on,
> > install,
> > > > configure and develop with Struts with the user guide and this paper
in
> > hand
> > > > and feel fairly confident in developing with it.
> > >
> >
> >
>
