I'm not saying *I* am not writing doc's on the wiki. I am saying that with these rules, there won't be a giant, inspired, communal effort to create the docs. I *am* saying that I will not be submitting patches for documentation, and that I suspect nobody will, because of the large effort this requires, in contrast to editing a wiki. And with this setup, that effort (during a development project at your day time job, with an undoubtedly impossible deadline) doesn't weigh against the eeny weeny gain in your noösphere ;-). Like all OSS, it's about scratching your own itch. People are simply not inclined to work on make-believe material, and right now the wiki is playing house, not the 'real' stuff. Imagine the people at WikiPedia saying "yeah, yeah, but what you type here is not interesting, not 'real', you should see the 'real' stuff we do".

And with what I am seeing on progress you make on the code, the pain it takes to get to a next stable version, and the effort that goes in there (see the masses of communication on the mailing list and in the JIRA), I believe the project people (kudo's) won't have the time to copy doc's to svn. Let's be honest: this hasn't been a serious consideration in the past. Yes, this is a note of critique: this project is seriously under-documented (not only in the user doc's, but also in the source code, BTW).

So, by combining these opinions, I come to the conclusion that there will be no, not even mediocre, evolving, user documentation in the foreseeable future. Like I said: bummer.

Frankly, this discussion (I really didn't intend on starting, but it's a slow night here ;-)) reminds me a bit of the discussion 2 months ago about using maven or not. It is clear that the project leaders are not comfortable, in this case, with the basic idea of wiki. We have a different opinion on that (I have enormously positive experiences with wiki's), and that's ok. Still kudo's and muchas gracias for the MyFaces effort.


On 25 Aug 2005, at 22:47, Mike Kienenberger wrote:

No one is saying that you shouldn't write the docs on the wiki.
They're just saying that the "official" version of the documentation
is in svn, and that documentation in the wiki eventually needs to be
ported over to the website, and that submitting a patch to do so make
the process go faster.

In my opinion, this is the correct choice. The website/xml docs are
something that can be distributed and used without an internet
connection, while the wiki requires an active internet connection.

-Mike

On 8/25/05, ir. ing. Jan Dockx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You obviously have a lot of time at your disposal ;-). But hey, it's
you project. I was writing some doc's on the wiki right now, but I am
not going to go through the hassle of creating patches and stuff. You
obviously want tight control, and you're welcome to that, of course.
Sadly, that means no doc's by Monday, created by a giant, well-willing,
communal user effort. ;-). Bummer.

On 25 Aug 2005, at 21:08, Sean Schofield wrote:

I disagree with moving stuff from the website to the wiki. I think
the component doc should go on the website and be part of the official
MyFaces svn. This will also ensure uniform standards and quality of
the doc.

If users want to put extra component doc in the wiki (or are not
comfortable with Forrest or subversion) then as Martin said, this will
be a small help b/c eventually we can move it.

IMO wiki is also a good candidate for server configuration, IDE
configuration, etc. Additional examples are also fine for wiki. But
documentation on the components should be on the website. That's what
is expected. Check out the Ant project. You will see all of the
tasks documented right there (no wiki.)

sean

On 8/25/05, ir. ing. Jan Dockx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, -1 on that, actually. I am a great believer in wiki's, and I
suggest that you won't copy the doc to the homepage, but link from the
homepage to the wiki. One of the stifling things about the MyFaces
documentation is that it is in Too Many Places. Nobody knows where to
look exactly, people are not eager to work on doc's that are not the
reals doc's, and create patches and submit them and stuff is far to
time consuming. For writing doc's in the wiki, you don't need to
checkout the source tree. This is enduser documentation, not developer
documentation, so the overhead is stifling the work.

I suggest "we" decide that the documentation will be the wiki. Let's
move whatever there is in /forest/content to the wiki (users can do
that), and kill that part it Subversion. The examples should stay. At
a
(much) later date, somebody could decide to create a pdf or a book
based on the wiki, but that's another story, and not our current
concern.


On 25 Aug 2005, at 16:29, Martin Marinschek wrote:

+1

;)

If you want to get involved even more, it would be great if you would
add this documentation to the /forrest/content section of our
sourcetree for viewing it on the homepage.

(just send us patches, we will commit them)

If not, just put it on the WIKI, and gradually we will move it over
to
the homepage.

regards,

Martin

On 8/25/05, Clément Maignien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1


-----Message d'origine-----
De : ir. ing. Jan Dockx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : jeudi 25 août 2005 16:16
À : MyFaces Discussion
Objet : Let's write that doc!

I suggest that we make this a user effort. Everybody, make an
account
in the
wiki, and <a
href="http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/MyFacesComponents">let's
start documenting those components</a>. If everybody writes a little
piece
(what is it for, how to use it), we'll have full documentation by
Monday.

I just added a little grain. More to come, I promise.


On 25 Aug 2005, at 15:30, Sean Schofield wrote:



Thanks so much for pointing out that messages tag. I was just about
to write something similar because I didn't know about it. Is it
listed somewhere on the MyFaces website? I don't see it here:
http://myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/overview.html

Unfortunately that page is woefully out of date. Updating it is on
my
shortlist of things to do.


Regarding your comment on it being specific to MyFaces: Isn't it
only
specific to the MyFaces extensions? In other words, couldn't I use
it
with the RI as long as I included the myfaces-extensions-1.0.9.jar
and
referenced the taglib?

Right you can use tomahawk with the RI and if you want that
functionality use <t:message> instead of <h:message>.


-Ken

sean


Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jan Dockx

PeopleWare NV - Head Office
Cdt.Weynsstraat 85
B-2660 Hoboken
Tel: +32 3 448.33.38
Fax: +32 3 448.32.66

PeopleWare NV - Branch Office Geel
Kleinhoefstraat 5
B-2440 Geel
Tel: +32 14 57.00.90
Fax: +32 14 58.13.25

http://www.peopleware.be/
http://www.mobileware.be/



--

http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Trainings in English and German


Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jan Dockx

PeopleWare NV - Head Office
Cdt.Weynsstraat 85
B-2660 Hoboken
Tel: +32 3 448.33.38
Fax: +32 3 448.32.66

PeopleWare NV - Branch Office Geel
Kleinhoefstraat 5
B-2440 Geel
Tel: +32 14 57.00.90
Fax: +32 14 58.13.25

http://www.peopleware.be/
http://www.mobileware.be/





Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jan Dockx

PeopleWare NV - Head Office
Cdt.Weynsstraat 85
B-2660 Hoboken
Tel: +32 3 448.33.38
Fax: +32 3 448.32.66

PeopleWare NV - Branch Office Geel
Kleinhoefstraat 5
B-2440 Geel
Tel: +32 14 57.00.90
Fax: +32 14 58.13.25

http://www.peopleware.be/
http://www.mobileware.be/





<x-tad-smaller>Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jan Dockx
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>
PeopleWare NV - Head Office</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>
Cdt.Weynsstraat 85
B-2660 Hoboken
Tel: +32 3 448.33.38
Fax: +32 3 448.32.66 </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-smaller>
PeopleWare NV - Branch Office Geel</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>
Kleinhoefstraat 5
B-2440 Geel
Tel: +32 14 57.00.90
Fax: +32 14 58.13.25</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-smaller>
http://www.peopleware.be/
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>http://www.mobileware.be/</x-tad-smaller>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to