> the time to do some major reorganization, but *only* if we > can come up with and agree on a satisfactory system of names and paths. I agree completely.
> it's not the CVS work. it's a matter of inertia and > consistency. we have to maintain a common "language" Ok. That makes sense. > i suppose. however, though it is related to documentation, > it really should precede it and thus probably deserves > a new thread and proposal. Ok. I'll start one. > morning Pandora was let out of her box. :-( > oh. sorry. :-/ No worries. I'll stick a big fat disclaimer on them to try preventing confusion, "THIS IS JUST A TESTING WHITEBOARD AREA - THESE DOCS ARE NOT NECESSARILY CORRECT NOR ENDORSED IN ANY WAY!" > you've probably also missed out on <create-session> and > <data> too, eh? Ayep, I remember seeing that patch, but I tend to filter out stuff that isn't causing me any direct pain. > > JavaDocs might be good to pull up into the documentation pages? I'll go have a look at the JavaDocs, and specifically the ones mentioned. > i tend to primarily use javadoc to explain things. You're a good man for it! :-) (Apologies for ignoring the javadoc, I've just been burned so often by poor javadocs like "setFoo : is used to set the variable Foo with the value in String myFoo" that I don't usually go there.) I do like how manuals/docs can give a narrative that can span across serveral bits of code. If I don't know anything about a code package, I don't know where to start looking in JavaDoc, whereas a manual/readme can give me a roadmap of what to do/read. > > BTW - did no one like my logo artwork? > i'm fairly ambivalent when it comes to logos. but i am > curious, what's up with the arrow-circle? > reminds me of the recycling logo. Ha, I see now that you're right. I wanted a wrench, but arrows were simpler and seemed to evoke 'velocity'. Main goal: smaller size and add "Tools". Speaking of size, which project do I send a patch to reduce the big honkin' Jakarta logo to leave a little room for a project logo? <grin> > ah, but then one must wonder why the ToolboxManager & co. > aren't in the toolbox package, but the tools are. :-( Ah. Hadn't looked that deep into the src, my eyes glaze over on the Toolbox emails... so long as the simple config works, I'm happy. ;-) Nathan wrote: > i think it'd be nice to cut things down to just VelocityView > and VelocityStruts (or whatever you want to call them). > can anyone give a really good reason to maintain a separate > library just for these tools? after all, they are "view tools." Aren't the tools supposed to be able to live without VelocityViewServlet, so folks using other frameworks can leverage them without the extra baggage? Timo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
