You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shiro.apache.org by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> on 2008/08/18 18:45:41 UTC
The JSecurity website
So I know we've been talking about using the apache cwiki (Confluence) to
generate our normal website. Allan, where do we stand on this? Will it be
sufficient for our needs?
I started thinking about this, and I'm a _real_ stickler for a really nice
looking website. I want to to be clean, look good and be easy to navigate.
I'm not a fan of Maven generated web sites, nor do I like the default LnF of
Confluence.
I do however like JSecurity's current website (it definitely could look a
bit nicer though). I'm also impressed with Wicket's website (cwiki
generated), as well as CouchDB's (
http://incubator.apache.org/couchdb/index.html), which looks manually
written.
In the last few years, I've been incredibly happy with Drupal for managing
our website. When we move to ASF permanently, it appears that we won't have
that at our disposal. So, my question is, are you guys OK with using
cwiki? Or would you be ok with a manually maintained and published website?
I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I rarely
update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
announcement and product release - something that would still be easy to do
in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN). For
some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable enough for
our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the wrong
way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to know to
adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the web and
could be confusing for some people.
We could always link to the wiki for end-user-editable content, but maybe
the main website is developer-maintained only. What do you guys think?
Allan, what is your opinion of Confluence and do you think it is good for us
moving forward?
Thanks for any feedback from anyone,
Le
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by sabob <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Les,
Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
> For example, I came across this
> (http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/)
> a while back and think it is just awesome.
>
http://code.google.com/p/google-code-prettify/ is an alternative to
syntaxhighlighter released under the Apache 2.0 license. It is not as
powerful though (does not support line numbers for example).
kind regards
bob
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/The-JSecurity-website-tp731203p740868.html
Sent from the JSecurity Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Thanks for forwarding it on Craig.
Just to be clear, I''d like to just use code in the html of the public
project website - we would not modify the code, incorporate it into any of
our software, nor distribute it in any form.
Would this be ok?
I'm assuming this is ok since we would be abiding by the LGPL and we're not
distributing it. Much in the same way the ASF uses other non-ASF products
(Jira, Confluence, etc).
Please advise!
Thanks,
Les
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
> Hi Les,
>
> This is a question for infra, not just for the jsecurity team.
>
> I'm copying infra on this thread so they can offer their opinions.
>
> The web site is part of Apache, but it's not a "release" of Apache code the
> way a downloadable source or binary release is a "release" of Apache code.
>
> I believe that if you propose to use some LGPL code to make the web site
> easier to use, there will not be any objection, but it's best to ask in case
> there are any questions by the infra team whose responsibility is to keep
> Apache running. Infra might have some questions about the code that go
> beyond the license.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
> Hrm. I see that syntaxhighlighter is LGPL. Are we allowed to _use_ LGPL
>> code in the public website even though we're not using it our actual
>> software?
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com> wrote:
>>
>> Another question - with the exported website, could we install our own
>>> CSS
>>> and JavaScript libraries?
>>>
>>> For example, I came across this (
>>> http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/) a while back and think it
>>> is
>>> just awesome. I want to use it on the quickstart/sample pages to make
>>> things look nicer. Can we do that with an exported site? (I'm trying to
>>> learn what we are capable of or perhaps limited to).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, ok, awesome. Thanks for clarifying Craig!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can link to the exported version of the wiki, to any page that is
>>>>> part of the project's web site. No problem. The exported version has
>>>>> been
>>>>> transformed into html.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dynamic part of the wiki is generated each time the page is
>>>>> referenced, so having external links to it is a resource problem for
>>>>> Apache.
>>>>>
>>>>> Call it weird rules, but all you need to do is to use the exported URL
>>>>> prefix instead of the dynamic URL prefix. The dynamic URL prefix isn't
>>>>> even
>>>>> visible to visitors or users of the exported site. It's only known to
>>>>> the
>>>>> folks on the project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The big notice at the top of this page:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <
>>>>>> list@toolazydogs.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I
>>>>>>> rarely
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the
>>>>>>>> occasional
>>>>>>>> announcement and product release - something that would still be
>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN).
>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable
>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the
>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the
>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> could be confusing for some people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part of
>>>>>>> CWIKI
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> wiki"
>>>>>>> rule?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Brett,
Thanks for the reference. The relevant links from the other discussion
can be found in this JIRA, which is a bit more broad, involving not
only the web site but distribution of the syntax highlighter as part
of an Apache downloadable artifact as well.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-19
Bottom line, it looks like we're in good standing if the JSecurity web
site includes the syntax highlighter.
Craig
On Aug 18, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> All,
>
> I think you'll find the specific case of syntax highlighter was
> discussed very recently on legal-discuss.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 19/08/2008, at 3:58 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Hi Les,
>>
>> This is a question for infra, not just for the jsecurity team.
>>
>> I'm copying infra on this thread so they can offer their opinions.
>>
>> The web site is part of Apache, but it's not a "release" of Apache
>> code the way a downloadable source or binary release is a "release"
>> of Apache code.
>>
>> I believe that if you propose to use some LGPL code to make the web
>> site easier to use, there will not be any objection, but it's best
>> to ask in case there are any questions by the infra team whose
>> responsibility is to keep Apache running. Infra might have some
>> questions about the code that go beyond the license.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>>> Hrm. I see that syntaxhighlighter is LGPL. Are we allowed to
>>> _use_ LGPL
>>> code in the public website even though we're not using it our actual
>>> software?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another question - with the exported website, could we install
>>>> our own CSS
>>>> and JavaScript libraries?
>>>>
>>>> For example, I came across this (
>>>> http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/) a while back and
>>>> think it is
>>>> just awesome. I want to use it on the quickstart/sample pages to
>>>> make
>>>> things look nicer. Can we do that with an exported site? (I'm
>>>> trying to
>>>> learn what we are capable of or perhaps limited to).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Les Hazlewood
>>>> <le...@hazlewood.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah, ok, awesome. Thanks for clarifying Craig!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can link to the exported version of the wiki, to any page
>>>>>> that is
>>>>>> part of the project's web site. No problem. The exported
>>>>>> version has been
>>>>>> transformed into html.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dynamic part of the wiki is generated each time the page is
>>>>>> referenced, so having external links to it is a resource
>>>>>> problem for Apache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Call it weird rules, but all you need to do is to use the
>>>>>> exported URL
>>>>>> prefix instead of the dynamic URL prefix. The dynamic URL
>>>>>> prefix isn't even
>>>>>> visible to visitors or users of the exported site. It's only
>>>>>> known to the
>>>>>> folks on the project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big notice at the top of this page:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think my current preference is the manually maintained
>>>>>>>> one. I rarely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the
>>>>>>>>> occasional
>>>>>>>>> announcement and product release - something that would
>>>>>>>>> still be easy
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in
>>>>>>>>> to SVN).
>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or
>>>>>>>>> configuable enough
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs
>>>>>>>>> me the
>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would
>>>>>>>>> have to know
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit
>>>>>>>>> of the web
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> could be confusing for some people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part
>>>>>>>> of CWIKI
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no
>>>>>>>> linking to the
>>>>>>>> wiki"
>>>>>>>> rule?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>>>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
All,
I think you'll find the specific case of syntax highlighter was
discussed very recently on legal-discuss.
Cheers,
Brett
On 19/08/2008, at 3:58 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Les,
>
> This is a question for infra, not just for the jsecurity team.
>
> I'm copying infra on this thread so they can offer their opinions.
>
> The web site is part of Apache, but it's not a "release" of Apache
> code the way a downloadable source or binary release is a "release"
> of Apache code.
>
> I believe that if you propose to use some LGPL code to make the web
> site easier to use, there will not be any objection, but it's best
> to ask in case there are any questions by the infra team whose
> responsibility is to keep Apache running. Infra might have some
> questions about the code that go beyond the license.
>
> Craig
>
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
>> Hrm. I see that syntaxhighlighter is LGPL. Are we allowed to
>> _use_ LGPL
>> code in the public website even though we're not using it our actual
>> software?
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Another question - with the exported website, could we install our
>>> own CSS
>>> and JavaScript libraries?
>>>
>>> For example, I came across this (
>>> http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/) a while back and
>>> think it is
>>> just awesome. I want to use it on the quickstart/sample pages to
>>> make
>>> things look nicer. Can we do that with an exported site? (I'm
>>> trying to
>>> learn what we are capable of or perhaps limited to).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah, ok, awesome. Thanks for clarifying Craig!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can link to the exported version of the wiki, to any page
>>>>> that is
>>>>> part of the project's web site. No problem. The exported version
>>>>> has been
>>>>> transformed into html.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dynamic part of the wiki is generated each time the page is
>>>>> referenced, so having external links to it is a resource problem
>>>>> for Apache.
>>>>>
>>>>> Call it weird rules, but all you need to do is to use the
>>>>> exported URL
>>>>> prefix instead of the dynamic URL prefix. The dynamic URL prefix
>>>>> isn't even
>>>>> visible to visitors or users of the exported site. It's only
>>>>> known to the
>>>>> folks on the project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The big notice at the top of this page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one.
>>>>>>> I rarely
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the
>>>>>>>> occasional
>>>>>>>> announcement and product release - something that would still
>>>>>>>> be easy
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to
>>>>>>>> SVN).
>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or
>>>>>>>> configuable enough
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs
>>>>>>>> me the
>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would
>>>>>>>> have to know
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of
>>>>>>>> the web
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> could be confusing for some people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part
>>>>>>> of CWIKI
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no
>>>>>>> linking to the
>>>>>>> wiki"
>>>>>>> rule?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Mon, 8/18/08, Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM> wrote:
>
> This is a question for infra, not just for the jsecurity
> team.
>
> I'm copying infra on this thread so they can offer
> their opinions.
>
> The web site is part of Apache, but it's not a
> "release" of Apache
> code the way a downloadable source or binary release is a
> "release" of
> Apache code.
>
> I believe that if you propose to use some LGPL code to make
> the web
> site easier to use, there will not be any objection, but
> it's best to
> ask in case there are any questions by the infra team whose
>
> responsibility is to keep Apache running. Infra might have
> some
> questions about the code that go beyond the license.
>
The license wouldn't be infra's concern here, since LGPL is perfectly
redistributable. What sort of product advertising the code does
would be PRC's concern (another issue to consider). My concern would
be that since the codebase is broken into javascript modules, can
the code loader be tricked into downloading those modules from a third
party? There may be other issues particular to javascript that I'm
overlooking, but my first instinct would be to scrutinize
whatever part of the code downloads those additional modules.
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Les,
This is a question for infra, not just for the jsecurity team.
I'm copying infra on this thread so they can offer their opinions.
The web site is part of Apache, but it's not a "release" of Apache
code the way a downloadable source or binary release is a "release" of
Apache code.
I believe that if you propose to use some LGPL code to make the web
site easier to use, there will not be any objection, but it's best to
ask in case there are any questions by the infra team whose
responsibility is to keep Apache running. Infra might have some
questions about the code that go beyond the license.
Craig
On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> Hrm. I see that syntaxhighlighter is LGPL. Are we allowed to _use_
> LGPL
> code in the public website even though we're not using it our actual
> software?
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Another question - with the exported website, could we install our
>> own CSS
>> and JavaScript libraries?
>>
>> For example, I came across this (
>> http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/) a while back and think
>> it is
>> just awesome. I want to use it on the quickstart/sample pages to
>> make
>> things look nicer. Can we do that with an exported site? (I'm
>> trying to
>> learn what we are capable of or perhaps limited to).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, ok, awesome. Thanks for clarifying Craig!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>> You can link to the exported version of the wiki, to any page
>>>> that is
>>>> part of the project's web site. No problem. The exported version
>>>> has been
>>>> transformed into html.
>>>>
>>>> The dynamic part of the wiki is generated each time the page is
>>>> referenced, so having external links to it is a resource problem
>>>> for Apache.
>>>>
>>>> Call it weird rules, but all you need to do is to use the
>>>> exported URL
>>>> prefix instead of the dynamic URL prefix. The dynamic URL prefix
>>>> isn't even
>>>> visible to visitors or users of the exported site. It's only
>>>> known to the
>>>> folks on the project.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The big notice at the top of this page:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one.
>>>>>> I rarely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the
>>>>>>> occasional
>>>>>>> announcement and product release - something that would still
>>>>>>> be easy
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to
>>>>>>> SVN).
>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or
>>>>>>> configuable enough
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs
>>>>>>> me the
>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have
>>>>>>> to know
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of
>>>>>>> the web
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> could be confusing for some people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part
>>>>>> of CWIKI
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> wiki"
>>>>>> rule?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>.
Hrm. I see that syntaxhighlighter is LGPL. Are we allowed to _use_ LGPL
code in the public website even though we're not using it our actual
software?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com> wrote:
> Another question - with the exported website, could we install our own CSS
> and JavaScript libraries?
>
> For example, I came across this (
> http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/) a while back and think it is
> just awesome. I want to use it on the quickstart/sample pages to make
> things look nicer. Can we do that with an exported site? (I'm trying to
> learn what we are capable of or perhaps limited to).
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, ok, awesome. Thanks for clarifying Craig!
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> You can link to the exported version of the wiki, to any page that is
>>> part of the project's web site. No problem. The exported version has been
>>> transformed into html.
>>>
>>> The dynamic part of the wiki is generated each time the page is
>>> referenced, so having external links to it is a resource problem for Apache.
>>>
>>> Call it weird rules, but all you need to do is to use the exported URL
>>> prefix instead of the dynamic URL prefix. The dynamic URL prefix isn't even
>>> visible to visitors or users of the exported site. It's only known to the
>>> folks on the project.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>
>>> The big notice at the top of this page:
>>>>
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I rarely
>>>>>
>>>>>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
>>>>>> announcement and product release - something that would still be easy
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN).
>>>>>> For
>>>>>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable enough
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the
>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to know
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the web
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> could be confusing for some people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part of CWIKI
>>>>> is
>>>>> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking to the
>>>>> wiki"
>>>>> rule?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com>.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com> wrote:
> Another question - with the exported website, could we install our own CSS
> and JavaScript libraries?
I don't believe anyone answered this question. Yes, the exported site
is just HTML so it can refer to any CSS or JavaScript files that
you've uploaded somewhere, supposedly on the JSecurity site. For
example, upload your CSS files to
/www/incubator.apache.org/jsecurity/css and you're good to go.
/niklas
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>.
Another question - with the exported website, could we install our own CSS
and JavaScript libraries?
For example, I came across this (http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/)
a while back and think it is just awesome. I want to use it on the
quickstart/sample pages to make things look nicer. Can we do that with an
exported site? (I'm trying to learn what we are capable of or perhaps
limited to).
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com> wrote:
> Ah, ok, awesome. Thanks for clarifying Craig!
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
>
>> I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
>>
>> You can link to the exported version of the wiki, to any page that is part
>> of the project's web site. No problem. The exported version has been
>> transformed into html.
>>
>> The dynamic part of the wiki is generated each time the page is
>> referenced, so having external links to it is a resource problem for Apache.
>>
>> Call it weird rules, but all you need to do is to use the exported URL
>> prefix instead of the dynamic URL prefix. The dynamic URL prefix isn't even
>> visible to visitors or users of the exported site. It's only known to the
>> folks on the project.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>> The big notice at the top of this page:
>>>
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I rarely
>>>>
>>>>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
>>>>> announcement and product release - something that would still be easy
>>>>> to
>>>>> do
>>>>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN).
>>>>> For
>>>>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable enough
>>>>> for
>>>>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the
>>>>> wrong
>>>>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to know
>>>>> to
>>>>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the web
>>>>> and
>>>>> could be confusing for some people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part of CWIKI
>>>> is
>>>> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking to the
>>>> wiki"
>>>> rule?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>.
Ah, ok, awesome. Thanks for clarifying Craig!
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
> I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
>
> You can link to the exported version of the wiki, to any page that is part
> of the project's web site. No problem. The exported version has been
> transformed into html.
>
> The dynamic part of the wiki is generated each time the page is referenced,
> so having external links to it is a resource problem for Apache.
>
> Call it weird rules, but all you need to do is to use the exported URL
> prefix instead of the dynamic URL prefix. The dynamic URL prefix isn't even
> visible to visitors or users of the exported site. It's only known to the
> folks on the project.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
> The big notice at the top of this page:
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>
>>> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I rarely
>>>
>>>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
>>>> announcement and product release - something that would still be easy to
>>>> do
>>>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN). For
>>>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable enough
>>>> for
>>>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the
>>>> wrong
>>>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to know
>>>> to
>>>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the web
>>>> and
>>>> could be confusing for some people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part of CWIKI is
>>> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking to the
>>> wiki"
>>> rule?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
You can link to the exported version of the wiki, to any page that is
part of the project's web site. No problem. The exported version has
been transformed into html.
The dynamic part of the wiki is generated each time the page is
referenced, so having external links to it is a resource problem for
Apache.
Call it weird rules, but all you need to do is to use the exported URL
prefix instead of the dynamic URL prefix. The dynamic URL prefix isn't
even visible to visitors or users of the exported site. It's only
known to the folks on the project.
Craig
On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> The big notice at the top of this page:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> <li...@toolazydogs.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I
>> rarely
>>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the
>>> occasional
>>> announcement and product release - something that would still be
>>> easy to
>>> do
>>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to
>>> SVN). For
>>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable
>>> enough for
>>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me
>>> the wrong
>>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to
>>> know to
>>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the
>>> web and
>>> could be confusing for some people.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part of
>> CWIKI is
>> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking to
>> the wiki"
>> rule?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>.
The big notice at the top of this page:
http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I rarely
>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
>> announcement and product release - something that would still be easy to
>> do
>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN). For
>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable enough for
>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the wrong
>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to know to
>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the web and
>> could be confusing for some people.
>>
>
>
> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part of CWIKI is
> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking to the wiki"
> rule?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>.
Niklas,
Thanks very much for answering my other question - I appreciate it! It
definitely helps me understand things a bit better.
Cheers,
Les
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > When it comes to export the site, you just have to ping one of the
> current
> > admin (alan and I are, AFAIK)
>
> Just a minor clarification. Exporting the site is normally done
> automatically on each page save in Confluence and would not need help
> by Emmanuel or Alan. Updating the template and then make a complete
> new export, probably what Emmanuel meant, does require admin access.
>
> /niklas
>
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com>.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When it comes to export the site, you just have to ping one of the current
> admin (alan and I are, AFAIK)
Just a minor clarification. Exporting the site is normally done
automatically on each page save in Confluence and would not need help
by Emmanuel or Alan. Updating the template and then make a complete
new export, probably what Emmanuel meant, does require admin access.
/niklas
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Les Hazlewood wrote:
> I guess this would be a huge pain while tweaking, for example:
>
> "Change this header, ok, let's see what it looks like - Now we gotta get
> Alan to help us to apply the template. Ok, now we see what it looks like,
> but, oh darn, we gotta change this nav bar. Ok, change it, have Alan apply
> it, see what it looks like, "
>
> ad nauseum.
>
> if my above assumptions are correct, that would take _forever_ to get this
> done ;)
>
> Isn't there a more efficient way?
>
Well, do your LnF tests _before_ applying them on the real web site !
There is nothing wrong in defining a temporary web site, and then export
the template to confluence a couple of times. Everyone can load an
index.html file locally from some committed web site. When the site
looks like ok, we dump the test site, and we are all set.
The biggest advantages Confluence brings is that you can modify the
pages very easily, without having to deal with crappy <html tags>...
When it comes to export the site, you just have to ping one of the
current admin (alan and I are, AFAIK)
A good balance between pros and cons, IMHO.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:21 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> I guess this would be a huge pain while tweaking, for example:
>
> "Change this header, ok, let's see what it looks like - Now we gotta
> get
> Alan to help us to apply the template. Ok, now we see what it looks
> like,
> but, oh darn, we gotta change this nav bar. Ok, change it, have
> Alan apply
> it, see what it looks like, "
>
> ad nauseum.
>
> if my above assumptions are correct, that would take _forever_ to
> get this
> done ;)
>
> Isn't there a more efficient way?
Not if we go w/ CWIKI unfortunately. I think that a hybrid solution,
as you suggested, might be best.
Regards,
Alan
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>.
I guess this would be a huge pain while tweaking, for example:
"Change this header, ok, let's see what it looks like - Now we gotta get
Alan to help us to apply the template. Ok, now we see what it looks like,
but, oh darn, we gotta change this nav bar. Ok, change it, have Alan apply
it, see what it looks like, "
ad nauseum.
if my above assumptions are correct, that would take _forever_ to get this
done ;)
Isn't there a more efficient way?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Allan Ditzel <al...@gmail.com>wrote:
> For me, the part where I have to send a third party (for example, you) the
> template file so that we can changeh LnF is really limiting.
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >
> > I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I rarely
> >> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
> >> announcement and product release - something that would still be easy to
> >> do
> >> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN). For
> >> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable enough
> for
> >> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the
> wrong
> >> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to know
> to
> >> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the web
> and
> >> could be confusing for some people.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part of CWIKI is
> > not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking to the
> wiki"
> > rule?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
>
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Allan Ditzel <al...@gmail.com>.
For me, the part where I have to send a third party (for example, you) the
template file so that we can changeh LnF is really limiting.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I rarely
>> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
>> announcement and product release - something that would still be easy to
>> do
>> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN). For
>> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable enough for
>> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the wrong
>> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to know to
>> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the web and
>> could be confusing for some people.
>>
>
>
> I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part of CWIKI is
> not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking to the wiki"
> rule?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I
> rarely
> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
> announcement and product release - something that would still be
> easy to do
> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN).
> For
> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable
> enough for
> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the
> wrong
> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to
> know to
> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the
> web and
> could be confusing for some people.
I have no preferences but, I have a few questions. What part of CWIKI
is not configurable enough for our needs? What is this "no linking to
the wiki" rule?
Regards,
Alan
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Allan Ditzel <al...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Allan Ditzel <allan.ditzel@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Right now the export plug-in is taking the cwiki content and exporting it
> > to
> > html with the standard confluence LnF. There's a template file that Alan
> > sent me that I need to modify in order to change the LnF.
>
>
> Where is this being generated to? Can we see it? (I'm just curious on how
> the process works exactly - how often does it occur, where are the
> generated
> files, etc)
>
If you ssh into people.apache.org you can see the exported content in /www/
incubator.apache.org/jsecurity
Right now content is exported from /www/confluence-exports/JSEC/ (where the
export plug-in dumps its content) to
/www/incubator.apache.org/jsecurityonce an hour. The cron job is set
up under my account.
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Allan Ditzel <al...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Right now the export plug-in is taking the cwiki content and exporting it
> to
> html with the standard confluence LnF. There's a template file that Alan
> sent me that I need to modify in order to change the LnF.
Where is this being generated to? Can we see it? (I'm just curious on how
the process works exactly - how often does it occur, where are the generated
files, etc)
> The one nice feature of confluence is that you can easily search for
> content
> on the site. Granted, a well-laid out web site that is easily navigable
> making content easily available does a great deal to lessen the need to
> have
> search (i.e. if you can find the content easily from the menu, there's not
> too much of a need to search for it).
Check out the CouchDB approach for search: Visit
http://incubator.apache.org/couchdb/
and then the very first link at the top of the nav bar on the left is the
Search link. Click it and it takes you to a "Gooble Custom Search" page:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=006426053638666134111:bfy4xffxeqc
Which apparently aggregates the sources you select (regular site, mailing
list archives, etc, etc).
I'm assuming that we could use this to mitigate any potential loss of good
search if we didn't use cwiki. In fact, even if cwiki was perfect for our
website needs, we might still want to do the google custom search page
because cwiki doesn't handle the mailing list archives. Sounds like a cool
idea to me.
>
> To be honest, I find the cwiki export mechanism to be rather cumbersome.
> Having to go through a third party to install a new template file to change
> the LnF is less than ideal. So, having said that I would prefer to work
> with
> a manually maintained site, unless using something like drupal is still an
> option. Like Les, having to use cwiki really rubs me the wrong way.
>
> Allan
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > So I know we've been talking about using the apache cwiki (Confluence) to
> > generate our normal website. Allan, where do we stand on this? Will it
> be
> > sufficient for our needs?
> >
> > I started thinking about this, and I'm a _real_ stickler for a really
> nice
> > looking website. I want to to be clean, look good and be easy to
> navigate.
> > I'm not a fan of Maven generated web sites, nor do I like the default LnF
> > of
> > Confluence.
> >
> > I do however like JSecurity's current website (it definitely could look a
> > bit nicer though). I'm also impressed with Wicket's website (cwiki
> > generated), as well as CouchDB's (
> > http://incubator.apache.org/couchdb/index.html), which looks manually
> > written.
> >
> > In the last few years, I've been incredibly happy with Drupal for
> managing
> > our website. When we move to ASF permanently, it appears that we won't
> > have
> > that at our disposal. So, my question is, are you guys OK with using
> > cwiki? Or would you be ok with a manually maintained and published
> > website?
> >
> > I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I rarely
> > update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
> > announcement and product release - something that would still be easy to
> do
> > in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN). For
> > some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable enough
> for
> > our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the wrong
> > way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to know to
> > adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the web and
> > could be confusing for some people.
> >
> > We could always link to the wiki for end-user-editable content, but maybe
> > the main website is developer-maintained only. What do you guys think?
> > Allan, what is your opinion of Confluence and do you think it is good for
> > us
> > moving forward?
> >
> > Thanks for any feedback from anyone,
> >
> > Le
> >
>
Re: The JSecurity website
Posted by Allan Ditzel <al...@gmail.com>.
Right now the export plug-in is taking the cwiki content and exporting it to
html with the standard confluence LnF. There's a template file that Alan
sent me that I need to modify in order to change the LnF.
The one nice feature of confluence is that you can easily search for content
on the site. Granted, a well-laid out web site that is easily navigable
making content easily available does a great deal to lessen the need to have
search (i.e. if you can find the content easily from the menu, there's not
too much of a need to search for it).
To be honest, I find the cwiki export mechanism to be rather cumbersome.
Having to go through a third party to install a new template file to change
the LnF is less than ideal. So, having said that I would prefer to work with
a manually maintained site, unless using something like drupal is still an
option. Like Les, having to use cwiki really rubs me the wrong way.
Allan
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
> So I know we've been talking about using the apache cwiki (Confluence) to
> generate our normal website. Allan, where do we stand on this? Will it be
> sufficient for our needs?
>
> I started thinking about this, and I'm a _real_ stickler for a really nice
> looking website. I want to to be clean, look good and be easy to navigate.
> I'm not a fan of Maven generated web sites, nor do I like the default LnF
> of
> Confluence.
>
> I do however like JSecurity's current website (it definitely could look a
> bit nicer though). I'm also impressed with Wicket's website (cwiki
> generated), as well as CouchDB's (
> http://incubator.apache.org/couchdb/index.html), which looks manually
> written.
>
> In the last few years, I've been incredibly happy with Drupal for managing
> our website. When we move to ASF permanently, it appears that we won't
> have
> that at our disposal. So, my question is, are you guys OK with using
> cwiki? Or would you be ok with a manually maintained and published
> website?
>
> I think my current preference is the manually maintained one. I rarely
> update the JSecurity website today, and do so only for the occasional
> announcement and product release - something that would still be easy to do
> in a manually maintained site environment (e.g. checked in to SVN). For
> some reason, I just don't feel CWIKI is flexible or configuable enough for
> our needs, and the "no linking to the wiki" rule really rubs me the wrong
> way. I don't like that anyone visiting our website would have to know to
> adhere to weird linking rules - its just not in the spirit of the web and
> could be confusing for some people.
>
> We could always link to the wiki for end-user-editable content, but maybe
> the main website is developer-maintained only. What do you guys think?
> Allan, what is your opinion of Confluence and do you think it is good for
> us
> moving forward?
>
> Thanks for any feedback from anyone,
>
> Le
>