On Thursday 11 November 2010 11:20:54 am Robert Liguori wrote: > Glen, Benson, and Apache CXF team,
> Glen's comment: "One should also analyze the opportunity cost of making the > command line > options looking the same as the GNU conventions compared to adding > additional functionality to CXF,..." > Robert's Response: The definitions of the command line options are > different in at least three different places. Some of the inline usage > definitions don't even match what the tool actually does. For the most > extreme example, the usage for "idl2wsdl", starts out with "idltowsdl"; > just do a > "idl2wsdl -help" to see for yourself. "Cleanup" was my intent of the issue > raised, meeting conventions in the process is considered a "best practice" > and would be nice to the end-user community if achieved. OK. THESE types of things definitely are bugs and need to be fixed. Patches for that would be great. :-) > Glen's comment: "... a similar issue to your earlier desire to have the > CXF website be reformatted to look like Camel, ServiceMix, and > ActiveMQ's." Robert's Response: It was my general feeling that ASF > projects should be branded in a similar fashion. However, it's been made > to clear to me by several people at ASF that forcing branding does not > work well with open-source. Right. HOWEVER, the Apache Brand Management team did recently publish some requirements for how are site uses branding. See: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs All of the Apache projects are expected to conform to that by end of Q1 2011. Thus, ANY enhancements or anything that would get us closer to that would be great. (Honestly, I haven't read it yet so I don't even know how far away we are) > Glen's comment: "So as you enhance the CXF documentation, please be sure > that you're not > giving CXF "puppies as presents", I love that phrase. I'm going to have to remember that. :-) > things that look cute but are of > relatively limited benefit and need a lot of maintenance afterwards to > remain cute. " > Robert's Response: I'm definitely not on the same page as the CXF team. > It was a nice stay. If any of my other updates seem that they do more > harm than good, please revert the web pages back to old instances. I'm > not going to fall anything else back, as I feel that has been value in my > improvements to the web-pages content. Basically, the documentation on the site needs to be correct. I'm definitely not arguing about anything about that. If you see something wrong, by all means, please fix it. However, for things that change relatively rapidly (such as dependencies and versions and such), if they don't need to be on the web site, it's usually best to not put it there as it's likely to get completely out of date. As release manager, I know how much time is spent making sure the legal files and such in the distribution are correct. I really would prefer not having even more places to update. Anyway, I definitely encourage you to keep going. I'd LOVE to see you start submitting patches for some of the things and work toward becomming a committer. Dan > To wrap things up on my side, I'll look at the issues I have opened and > will try to align them with the general open-source philosophy. > > Take care, > Robert > -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://dankulp.com/blog
