Shale home page

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page:  We
don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.

I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
is..." belongs up at the top of the page.

Thoughts?  Volunteers to fix it? :)

-- 
Wendy

Re: Shale home page

[Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>]

On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/06, David Geary <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, IMO, that paragraph and the rest of the Background section are
> > dated now that we've cut ties with Struts. We could probably do with a
> new
> > introduction altogether.


I'm fine with either that, or moving it to a "history" page of some sort.

I also get the impression, compared to sites for other projects, that our
pages are a bit heavy on words and don't have quite enough pictures (and
yes, I'm pointing to myself as the author of lots of that stuff :-).
There's things we can do to improve it, but I want to focus primarily on
finishing up the dialog stuff right now.

>
> > And a snazzy new logo, dammit.
>
> James is running that show. :)   Votes, we need the rest of the votes!


Mine'll be in tonight (Prague time :-).

--
> Wendy
>

Craig

Re: Shale home page

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On 9/25/06, David Geary <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, IMO, that paragraph and the rest of the Background section are
> dated now that we've cut ties with Struts. We could probably do with a new
> introduction altogether.
>
> And a snazzy new logo, dammit.

James is running that show. :)   Votes, we need the rest of the votes!

-- 
Wendy

Re: Shale home page

[David Geary <sa...@gmail.com>]

2006/9/25, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
>
> Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page:  We
> don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
>
> I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
> is..." belongs up at the top of the page.


Thoughts?  Volunteers to fix it? :)


Actually, IMO, that paragraph and the rest of the Background section are
dated now that we've cut ties with Struts. We could probably do with a new
introduction altogether.

And a snazzy new logo, dammit.


david

--
> Wendy
>

Re: Shale home page

[Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>]

Not volunteering here but I definitely think we could streamline
things so that its easier to navigate.  IMO we have too much crammed
onto that first page.

sean

On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page:  We
> don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
>
> I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
> is..." belongs up at the top of the page.
>
> Thoughts?  Volunteers to fix it? :)
>
> --
> Wendy
>

RE: Shale home page

["Kito D. Mann" <km...@virtua.com>]

> > > Maybe it's something like a "meta-framework".  It's not really a 
> > > "framework" as such because JSF is the framework.
> > > But it is some missing parts that integrate fairly 
> seamlessly with 
> > > the JSF framework.  Missing parts and added value - 
> things like Clay 
> > > and Dialog are added value.  Things like the core ViewController 
> > > provide missing pieces to the core JSF framework.
> >
> > I like the way "meta-framework" sounds, but it implies 
> something more 
> > like Keel (http://www.keelframework.org). Shale's name provides the 
> > underpinnings for the verbage we need -- separate layers that can 
> > optionally be applied to your application. What's wrong with 
> > "services"?
> 
> 
> The "one sentence" description I have been using lately that seems to
> resonate:  Shale is a set of loosely coupled application 
> framework services built on top of JSF."  If need be, I also 
> emphasize that we're talking mostly about the "MVC 
> controller" part of JSF, and are agnostic about component 
> libraries.  Use whatever visual components you'd like, and 
> use Shale's features to make the back end of your application 
> easier to compose.

I think the one senetence explanation works quite well. "Loosely coupled" is
key.

> > > Of course as JSR-299 progresses we may find ourselves in 
> a different 
> > > category.  There has been talk of building a
> > > JSR-299 implementation when the time is right.
> >
> > I don't know if the category really changes. To me, that's just one 
> > more layer...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  So would a layer implementing the validation 
> annotations (303?) if/when it actually happens.

True. I think there are lots of opportunities for continually adding value
to JSF. Some if it will make it into the spec, and some won't.


> Craig

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kito D. Mann (kmann@virtua.com)
Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info

Re: Shale home page

[Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>]

On 10/19/06, Kito D. Mann <km...@virtua.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:46 PM, David Geary wrote:
> >
> > > If not working on it, I've been thinking about the homepage lately,
> > > and it strikes me that I don't really know how to spin
> > Shale. We have
> > > so many unrelated features that it's difficult to say
> > "Shale is...".
> > > The addition of JPA makes things even murkier. Are we one-stop
> > > shopping for JSF?
> > > Proving
> > > ground for JSF 2.0? I know we're a set of services, but that's a
> > > rather bland description.
> >
> > I agree.  Until about 4 months ago I only knew very little
> > about JSF.  I had not actually written a JSF app.  Now, I'm
> > in the middle of writing a pretty significant JSF app and
> > teaching our team of
> > developers how (and why) to use JSF.  So I've gone in head
> > first :-)
> > Before I started this adventure I had a difficult time seeing
> > where Shale fit.  Now I'm starting to see the plugin points
> > where it makes sense and hopefully we will start integrating
> > Shale into our app in the near future.
> >
> > Maybe it's something like a "meta-framework".  It's not
> > really a "framework" as such because JSF is the framework.
> > But it is some missing parts that integrate fairly seamlessly
> > with the JSF framework.  Missing parts and added value -
> > things like Clay and Dialog are added value.  Things like the
> > core ViewController provide missing pieces to the core JSF
> > framework.
>
> I like the way "meta-framework" sounds, but it implies something more like
> Keel (http://www.keelframework.org). Shale's name provides the
> underpinnings
> for the verbage we need -- separate layers that can optionally be applied
> to
> your application. What's wrong with "services"?


The "one sentence" description I have been using lately that seems to
resonate:  Shale is a set of loosely coupled application framework services
built on top of JSF."  If need be, I also emphasize that we're talking
mostly about the "MVC controller" part of JSF, and are agnostic about
component libraries.  Use whatever visual components you'd like, and use
Shale's features to make the back end of your application easier to compose.

> Maybe some of the missing pieces should be
> > submitted back as JSRs and we could work ourselves out of a
> > job in that sense.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they are not as
> > universally applicable as it seems at first glance.
>
> A lot of us JSF EG memebers are very familiar with Shale, so I'm pretty
> sure
> that features like the ViewController and Tiger annotations will make it
> into JSF 2.0 in some form.
>
> > Of course as JSR-299 progresses we may find ourselves in a
> > different category.  There has been talk of building a
> > JSR-299 implementation when the time is right.
>
> I don't know if the category really changes. To me, that's just one more
> layer...


Agreed.  So would a layer implementing the validation annotations (303?)
if/when it actually happens.

Craig

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Kito D. Mann (kmann@virtua.com)
> Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>
>

RE: Shale home page

["Kito D. Mann" <km...@virtua.com>]

> On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:46 PM, David Geary wrote:
> 
> > If not working on it, I've been thinking about the homepage lately, 
> > and it strikes me that I don't really know how to spin 
> Shale. We have 
> > so many unrelated features that it's difficult to say 
> "Shale is...". 
> > The addition of JPA makes things even murkier. Are we one-stop 
> > shopping for JSF?
> > Proving
> > ground for JSF 2.0? I know we're a set of services, but that's a 
> > rather bland description.
> 
> I agree.  Until about 4 months ago I only knew very little 
> about JSF.  I had not actually written a JSF app.  Now, I'm 
> in the middle of writing a pretty significant JSF app and 
> teaching our team of  
> developers how (and why) to use JSF.  So I've gone in head 
> first :-)   
> Before I started this adventure I had a difficult time seeing 
> where Shale fit.  Now I'm starting to see the plugin points 
> where it makes sense and hopefully we will start integrating 
> Shale into our app in the near future.
> 
> Maybe it's something like a "meta-framework".  It's not 
> really a "framework" as such because JSF is the framework.  
> But it is some missing parts that integrate fairly seamlessly 
> with the JSF framework.  Missing parts and added value - 
> things like Clay and Dialog are added value.  Things like the 
> core ViewController provide missing pieces to the core JSF 
> framework.  

I like the way "meta-framework" sounds, but it implies something more like
Keel (http://www.keelframework.org). Shale's name provides the underpinnings
for the verbage we need -- separate layers that can optionally be applied to
your application. What's wrong with "services"?

> Maybe some of the missing pieces should be 
> submitted back as JSRs and we could work ourselves out of a 
> job in that sense.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they are not as 
> universally applicable as it seems at first glance.

A lot of us JSF EG memebers are very familiar with Shale, so I'm pretty sure
that features like the ViewController and Tiger annotations will make it
into JSF 2.0 in some form.

> Of course as JSR-299 progresses we may find ourselves in a 
> different category.  There has been talk of building a 
> JSR-299 implementation when the time is right.

I don't know if the category really changes. To me, that's just one more
layer...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kito D. Mann (kmann@virtua.com)
Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info

Re: Shale home page

[Greg Reddin <gr...@apache.org>]

On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:46 PM, David Geary wrote:

> If not working on it, I've been thinking about the homepage lately,  
> and it
> strikes me that I don't really know how to spin Shale. We have so many
> unrelated features that it's difficult to say "Shale is...". The  
> addition of
> JPA makes things even murkier. Are we one-stop shopping for JSF?  
> Proving
> ground for JSF 2.0? I know we're a set of services, but that's a  
> rather
> bland description.

I agree.  Until about 4 months ago I only knew very little about  
JSF.  I had not actually written a JSF app.  Now, I'm in the middle  
of writing a pretty significant JSF app and teaching our team of  
developers how (and why) to use JSF.  So I've gone in head first :-)   
Before I started this adventure I had a difficult time seeing where  
Shale fit.  Now I'm starting to see the plugin points where it makes  
sense and hopefully we will start integrating Shale into our app in  
the near future.

Maybe it's something like a "meta-framework".  It's not really a  
"framework" as such because JSF is the framework.  But it is some  
missing parts that integrate fairly seamlessly with the JSF  
framework.  Missing parts and added value - things like Clay and  
Dialog are added value.  Things like the core ViewController provide  
missing pieces to the core JSF framework.  Maybe some of the missing  
pieces should be submitted back as JSRs and we could work ourselves  
out of a job in that sense.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they are not as  
universally applicable as it seems at first glance.

Of course as JSR-299 progresses we may find ourselves in a different  
category.  There has been talk of building a JSR-299 implementation  
when the time is right.

Greg

Re: Shale home page

[Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>]

On 10/18/06, David Geary <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I plan to work on the home page, but I won't get much done until I get off
> the road for awhile, which will be in a couple of weeks.
>
<snip/>

Great, you'll probably find a short description blurb (not more than
2-3 sentences--I'll try to take in the feedback from this thread) once
I'm done with the items (below). Please feel free to
delete/improve/adjust it as you see fit when you get a chance.

Thanks,
-Rahul


> If not working on it, I've been thinking about the homepage lately, and it
> strikes me that I don't really know how to spin Shale. We have so many
> unrelated features that it's difficult to say "Shale is...". The addition of
> JPA makes things even murkier. Are we one-stop shopping for JSF? Proving
> ground for JSF 2.0? I know we're a set of services, but that's a rather
> bland description.
>
>
> david
>
> 2006/10/18, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>:
> >
> > On 10/18/06, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page:  We
> > > > don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
> > > >
> > > > I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
> > > > is..." belongs up at the top of the page.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?  Volunteers to fix it? :)
> > > >
> > > <snip/>
> > >
> > > We really need to do this. I plan to make some changes as time permits
> > > (probably next week):
> > >
> > > * Remove logo bit from home page
> > > * Move the historical out to its own page
> > > * Try to add features-* pages content to the site sections of their
> > > own modules (for example, the description in the dialog module site -
> > > thanks Craig - is much more accurate and upto date that the
> > > corresponding features page)
> > > * Point to module sites rather than features-* where feasible
> > > * Move download and documentation (which is really Javadocs) sections
> > > to their own pages
> > > * The mailing lists and issue tracking blurbs on home page can go
> > > IMO, redundant given the LHS menu contains the links (need to add ML
> > > link)
> >
> >
> > Thanks Rahul ... +1 on all of these.
> >
> > One additional note on the "features" sections.  With the way things are
> > now
> > spread out into submodules, I think we'll be able to completely get rid of
> > these by the time we're done, because the information will have been
> > distributed onto the submodule pages already.  But, we'll also want to
> > make
> > sure that the submodule list is up to date in every website (IIRC it is
> > manually maintained via cut-n-paste) to reflect the new additions.
> >
> > As for me, I'm planning on finishing up the main page for shale-dialog,
> > and
> > adding the rest of the stuff from features-dialog to the
> > shale-dialog-basic
> > page, in the next couple of days.
> >
> > And then some new content, hopefully soon.
> > >
> > > -Rahul
> >
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > > Wendy
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Shale home page

[David Geary <sa...@gmail.com>]

I plan to work on the home page, but I won't get much done until I get off
the road for awhile, which will be in a couple of weeks.

If not working on it, I've been thinking about the homepage lately, and it
strikes me that I don't really know how to spin Shale. We have so many
unrelated features that it's difficult to say "Shale is...". The addition of
JPA makes things even murkier. Are we one-stop shopping for JSF? Proving
ground for JSF 2.0? I know we're a set of services, but that's a rather
bland description.


david

2006/10/18, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>:
>
> On 10/18/06, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page:  We
> > > don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
> > >
> > > I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
> > > is..." belongs up at the top of the page.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?  Volunteers to fix it? :)
> > >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > We really need to do this. I plan to make some changes as time permits
> > (probably next week):
> >
> > * Remove logo bit from home page
> > * Move the historical out to its own page
> > * Try to add features-* pages content to the site sections of their
> > own modules (for example, the description in the dialog module site -
> > thanks Craig - is much more accurate and upto date that the
> > corresponding features page)
> > * Point to module sites rather than features-* where feasible
> > * Move download and documentation (which is really Javadocs) sections
> > to their own pages
> > * The mailing lists and issue tracking blurbs on home page can go
> > IMO, redundant given the LHS menu contains the links (need to add ML
> > link)
>
>
> Thanks Rahul ... +1 on all of these.
>
> One additional note on the "features" sections.  With the way things are
> now
> spread out into submodules, I think we'll be able to completely get rid of
> these by the time we're done, because the information will have been
> distributed onto the submodule pages already.  But, we'll also want to
> make
> sure that the submodule list is up to date in every website (IIRC it is
> manually maintained via cut-n-paste) to reflect the new additions.
>
> As for me, I'm planning on finishing up the main page for shale-dialog,
> and
> adding the rest of the stuff from features-dialog to the
> shale-dialog-basic
> page, in the next couple of days.
>
> And then some new content, hopefully soon.
> >
> > -Rahul
>
>
> Craig
>
>
> > --
> > > Wendy
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: Shale home page

[Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>]

On 10/18/06, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page:  We
> > don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
> >
> > I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
> > is..." belongs up at the top of the page.
> >
> > Thoughts?  Volunteers to fix it? :)
> >
> <snip/>
>
> We really need to do this. I plan to make some changes as time permits
> (probably next week):
>
> * Remove logo bit from home page
> * Move the historical out to its own page
> * Try to add features-* pages content to the site sections of their
> own modules (for example, the description in the dialog module site -
> thanks Craig - is much more accurate and upto date that the
> corresponding features page)
> * Point to module sites rather than features-* where feasible
> * Move download and documentation (which is really Javadocs) sections
> to their own pages
> * The mailing lists and issue tracking blurbs on home page can go
> IMO, redundant given the LHS menu contains the links (need to add ML
> link)


Thanks Rahul ... +1 on all of these.

One additional note on the "features" sections.  With the way things are now
spread out into submodules, I think we'll be able to completely get rid of
these by the time we're done, because the information will have been
distributed onto the submodule pages already.  But, we'll also want to make
sure that the submodule list is up to date in every website (IIRC it is
manually maintained via cut-n-paste) to reflect the new additions.

As for me, I'm planning on finishing up the main page for shale-dialog, and
adding the rest of the stuff from features-dialog to the shale-dialog-basic
page, in the next couple of days.

And then some new content, hopefully soon.
>
> -Rahul


Craig


> --
> > Wendy
> >
>

Re: Shale home page

[Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>]

On 9/25/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone on IRC brought up a good point about the Shale home page:  We
> don't say what Shale *is* until 1/3 of the way down the page.
>
> I think the information in the paragraph that starts "Thus, Shale
> is..." belongs up at the top of the page.
>
> Thoughts?  Volunteers to fix it? :)
>
<snip/>

We really need to do this. I plan to make some changes as time permits
(probably next week):

 * Remove logo bit from home page
 * Move the historical out to its own page
 * Try to add features-* pages content to the site sections of their
own modules (for example, the description in the dialog module site -
thanks Craig - is much more accurate and upto date that the
corresponding features page)
 * Point to module sites rather than features-* where feasible
 * Move download and documentation (which is really Javadocs) sections
to their own pages
 * The mailing lists and issue tracking blurbs on home page can go
IMO, redundant given the LHS menu contains the links (need to add ML
link)

And then some new content, hopefully soon.

-Rahul


> --
> Wendy
>