james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norman Maurer ...@byteaction.de>
Subject Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Date Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:43:05 GMT
Am Sonntag, den 16.07.2006, 18:57 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >> Done: Added it as the first link of "Related Projects". I don't like 
> >> this too much but it is better than nothing, and we should find a 
> >> consistent way to publish all of the projects (mime4j, postage, jsieve..)
> > 
> > Agreed on all counts.  Neither one of us likes the current situation, but agree
that doing this is better than not.
> 
> Sunny day and I'm sick, so I took some time to look at maven2 generation 
> and css.

First i hope you feel better tomorrow..

> 
> I created a css for maven2 generated site, that is different from James 
> current style but I think it is something in the middle between Maven2 
> style and current James style.
> 
> Currently I'm happy with the result:
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/jspf/
> 
> For that test I'm generating both James server and James jspf via 
> maven2, and imo this is the way to go.
> 
> About the look I'm happy with it and I think this is consistent and 
> looks better than both default maven and our current site.

I think the look is good (even i like the old james site look more).. I
also agree that we should build the site with maven2 with one css so we
get a consistent look over all the projects.

> 
> About the structure this currently improves only the multisite 
> navigation (via horizontabl bar for projects) but this is the issue 
> where maven2 can be of help and that deserve more work.
> 
> >> About the look (skin) jSPF site is generated throught maven2. Maven2 has 
> >> various level of customizability for its site generation tool.
> > 
> >> What we could try to do is to create a maven2 skin that somewhat 
> >> remember the current apache website and then use it for the main
> >> website and for james projects.
> > 
> > We've got to do something.  We want a main site, plus project specific content,
and release specific content within project specific content.  We also want to change what
Maven is generating.  Almost all of its default reports should be turned off.  Of the Project
Documentation set perhaps keep:
> 
> I agree.
> I think we can create a maven2 project for our main site using only the 
> content that is not project specific. As I already tried the James site 
> generation using maven2 this should not be a big problem.
> Maven should be able to automatically find the multiple projects and 
> keep consistency in layouts between them.
> I have to study a bit more about this and as always I don't know if and 
> when I'll find the time, but this seems the right way.

Thx for put your hands on this. It whould be cool if you share some docs
or links to see how you did it.

> 
> >   Dependencies, Issue Tracking, Mailing Lists, License
> > 
> > The Source Repository report is OK to show the URL, but all of the content should
be directed to http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn.  We don't want to maintain general SVN instructions.
> 
> Maven2 automatically generate this page:
> http://people.apache.org/~bago/james/looktest/jspf/source-repository.html
> 
> Imho from a user perspective this page is better than 
> http://www.apache.org/dev/#svn

Agree.. better structure and more usefull.

> 
> Both way we don't have to mantain it, because maven2 generate it 
> automatically.
> 
> > The only Project Report we should keep is the JavaDocs, and that needs to be per-release
level.  The "Who we are"/Project Team is JAMES, not component specific.
> 
> I agree on the per-release level, but I think that project reports are 
> helpful and if we can generate them automatically and with few effort we 
> should publish them:
> 
> As an example I find very useful the "XRef" as an additional reference 
> when I use libraries: most time Javadocs are not enough but I don't want 
> to download source distribution just to check a method source.
> 
> Most of the other reports are more oriented to us: surfire (test 
> reports), tag list, pmd, clover, etc..
> 
> I think it is useful to keep them but I don't care as much as for xref.
> 
> All of this last reports would be a must if we'll ever plan to publish 
> updated references for projects "trunks".
> 
> > And I most definitely do not want a "Built by Maven" logo on the page.
> 
> I'm -0 about this: if we use maven we should give credits to them.
> Btw it can be easily hidden via css.

Why you don't want this? I think if we use it me "should" give credit..
Its nothing more then "fair".

> 
> > I'd be willing to see what such an overall site would look like, but want to see
it before we decide to keep it.
> 
> I think the final goal will be much more similar to:
> http://directory.apache.org/
> They have ApacheDS, MINA and Naming as project categories, we would have 
> Server, jSPF, Postage, Mime4J, jSieve, and so on.
> 
I agree.. The site looks more clear and buisness like.

> I think that directory m2 "sources" will be helpful when trying to 
> achieve the same goal.
> 
> > Regardless of whether we use the same or different tools to build the site parts,
we can merge them via svn (e.g., james/ would come from site/, james/server would come from
server/, jspf/ would come from jspf/, etc.).  I'd prefer a common look, regardless of which
approach we take.
> 
> Please let me know what do you think of my test look.
Just did ;-)

> 
> Stefano

bye
Norman

Mime
View raw message