james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] James website update (Was: svn commit: r421896 - in /james/site/trunk/www)
Date Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:57:55 GMT
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.

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:

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.

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.

>   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:

Imho from a user perspective this page is better than 

Both way we don't have to mantain it, because maven2 generate it 

> 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.

> 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:
They have ApacheDS, MINA and Naming as project categories, we would have 
Server, jSPF, Postage, Mime4J, jSieve, and so on.

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.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message