I'd also like to suggest that we add small usage examples into
the .xdocs for the components themselves.
This was what made NeXTSTEP documentation so nice. You'd have some
decent usage documents right in the component reference, so I can go
to the loop component reference and see six ways to use it. It would
also go a long way to help people get good patterns.
My search path is usually: Crap, gotta use some component, go to the
reference... no good answer, go to the tutorial... to advanced, go to
the cookbook... nothing, go to the wiki... sort of related page, go to
the mailing lists..."
Because T5 is so component-oriented, shoring up the amount of
information and context you can get directly in the component
reference documentation would really short-circuit a lot of people's
searching.
cheers,
Christian.
On 29-Apr-09, at 19:02 , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
One of the issues with T5 documentation is that it is written in Maven
APT format. This is better than HTML or even various XML docbook-lite
kind of things, but it ties documentation down to the Tapestry release
cycle.
Perhaps it would be better if all documentation was moved onto a live
wiki. This has the advantage that more people can work on it, beyond
just the T5 committers.
I don't think Tapestry's wiki, http://wiki.apache.org/tapestry, is up
to the task.
I've set up Confluence at Tapestry360:
http://tapestry.formos.com/wiki/dashboard.action
This is a more industrial strength wiki, better organized, good
WYSIWYG editor, good support for images and attachments, and tons of
features I don't know or understand yet.
The downside of this is that it will be harder to correlate
documentation against releases. We've seen this before, when I might
publish on the list of the nightly docs some new features, and then a
raft of errors about it not working come in.
Also, I haven't had the bandwidth to validate the many notes and
how-tos on the current Wiki. I'm not sure I would personally be able
to do better on Confluence.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:31 PM, manuel aldana <ald...@gmx.de> wrote:
Inge Solvoll schrieb:
1. What, politically, made it hard to introduce T5 in your
organisation?
Who
resisted, and why?
I am sure there a two things which could help at promotion for
convincing
decision makers: Real big live sites running under tapestry and a
good up to
date book.
2. What, technically, made it hard to introduce/teach T5 among your
programmer colleagues? (some already mentioned documentation)
As bigger sites hardly start from scratch, I see the legacy reason
as a big
technical point. Usually big codebases rely on action/command focused
frameworks (e.g. struts, spring mvc) and it is extremely hard to
refactor
them to page and component based ones. Also I see that frontend
people are
being used to work with JSP, freemarker etc. and are a bit
hesitating to
look at "yet another" templating technology.
I really like tapestry concepts and helps a lot to think in different
directions even if you don't use it in daily job. About tap-ioc I
really
like to java-code style injection and configuration instead for XML.
- manuel aldana
ald...@gmx.de
software-engineering blog: http://www.aldana-online.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
Director of Open Source Technology at Formos
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
Christian Edward Gruber
e-mail: christianedwardgru...@gmail.com
weblog: http://www.geekinasuit.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
