Starting to look good. I still have the source for the verview/cpp/java imagesI made tbased on David's diagram. Problem is they are visio diagrams. I feel that I should attach to the JIRA for safe keeping but haven't got rounf to try converting to another format. I will have a quick look over the next 30 mins and give the new site a once over also.
Regards Simon On 7/26/06, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated. But I kindly request that patches and updates be to the tuscany\sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through the build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's not needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish. Also I'd like to get the source for the images checked in so others can edit. And a few lines what tools (openoffice?) was or could be used to edit them maybe a readme in the images directory. Thanks kelvin goodson wrote: > I'll try to get some more SDO content done in any spare moments while > here > at OSCon. I've reformatted the SDO Java overview that's currently on the > WIKI so that its suitable for dropping in, but I haven't got time to > fix up > all the links riight now, so hopefully I'll put a patch up later today. > > On 26/07/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Rick, >> >> This is a major improvement over what we currently have and I really >> like how things have been cleaned up and streamlined. I'm sure I will >> have some suggestions in the furture but I agree this should be >> published ASAP assuming others agree. >> >> Some minor comments that we may want to consider at some point later on: >> >> 1. In the Java projects section, splitting things down a bit further >> among SCA, DAS and SDO. I think we should make it more apparent the >> technologies may be used as well as built independently. Within SCA, >> I think we may want to split this even further between extensions and >> core at some point. >> >> 2. On the Java graphic, we should list more hosting platforms at some >> point (e.g. J2EE app servers, OSGi, whatever) >> >> Jim >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Rick wrote: >> >> > I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested, >> > added a link to the blog and fixed several bad links. >> > I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put >> > in the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would >> > be added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages. >> > I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox >> > site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to >> > get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ? >> > People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its >> > best to get that information now before we make it "absolutely >> > perfect". >> > I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid >> > of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the >> > first place. >> > >> > Luciano Resende wrote: >> >> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the >> >> live tuscany >> >> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568. >> >> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not >> >> implemented ( >> >> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be >> >> fixed, so >> >> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the >> >> new site >> >> structure. >> >> >> >> Categories: >> >> >> >> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and >> >> Documentation >> >> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK >> >> >> >> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure >> >> >> >> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure >> >> >> >> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site >> >> structure >> >> >> >> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure >> >> >> >> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure >> >> >> >> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think >> >> comunity in >> >> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing, >> >> Commiters and >> >> Documentation section added >> >> >> >> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site >> >> sections are >> >> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to >> >> wiki), Issue >> >> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies >> >> >> >> >> >> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our >> >> website >> >> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the >> >> following >> >> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON >> >> timeframe : >> >> >> >> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the >> >> one >> >> available today on live tuscany website) >> >> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568 >> >> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with >> >> DAS diagram >> >> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would >> >> link to this >> >> module overview page >> >> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the >> >> "release" >> >> link as they all point to same main download page. >> >> >> >> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the >> >> site in a >> >> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements >> >> later on. >> >> >> >> - Luciano >> >> >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
