I can't find an way to conver viso to open office that works. Tried most of the suggestions I can find on the web. However the diagrams are not so complicated that I can't redraw them by hand. If someone has already made the conversion save me some effort and speak up now while I go and get some food.
Simon On 7/26/06, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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] > >
