The sky is falling! :) Comparing Maven and Forrest (Re: NPEs on second build + rant)

[Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:51:15PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> >I wrote the following blog entry about a day spent trying to use Forrest:
> >
> >http://www.webweavertech.com/jefft/weblog/archives/000027.html
> >
> >It was written just to let off steam at a wasted day, but I hope it will
> >be accepted here in the spirit of constructive criticism, 
> 
> Forrest is not yet ready to be used easily in other projects, because it 
> has not been really discussed and done yet.

Exactly. And why not? Because the focus has always been "let's improve
xml.apache.org", not "let's make a generally useful doc system".

I'm suggesting that the social engineering of Forrest is subtly but
significantly wrong. The fastest way to get a good-looking xml.apache.org
is *not* to simply advertise that fact and get cracking, as Forrest has
done. The goal is too abstract; not enough people care. Instead, one
should appeal to people's self-interest; broaden the focus, say "we're
here to make a brilliant doc system that anyone can use", and get people
involved. THEN, if the project has evolved correctly, the secondary goal
of a better xml.apache.org will be met.

Forrest micro-optimized on one tiny section of the problem-space.
Forrest hoped that a general solution would emerge from tackling a
specific problem, rather than tackling the general problem (with
consequently more resources) and letting a specific solution
(xml.apache.org) fall out.

As evidence for this view, I ask you again to compare Maven to Forrest.
Both have goals of unifying the websites of their respective
organizations (Jakarta and xml.apache.org). However with Maven, the
unification goal is subordinate; first, they want to produce something
cool and consequently widely used. In Forrest, the unification goal is
explicit, and as a result Forrest is only good at generating docs for
Forrest. Result? Despite Forrest's head-start, Maven has a much more
dynamic community, and Jakarta sites are a lot closer to being unified
than xml.apache.org sites.

I invite everyone to read 'The Rise of "Worse is Better"':

http://www.ai.mit.edu/docs/articles/good-news/subsection3.2.1.html


Practically, what I'm asking is that people take these thoughts to heart,
and if they agree, then start giving priority to problems limiting
adoption over problems limiting xml.apache.org coolness. The most
immediate problem is, I'm afraid to say, the forced Centipede
integration. By all means use Centipede to build Forrest, but don't force
it on users. To further crush Nicola's ego :) and to help spread adoption
of Forrest, I'll be spending tomorrow attempting a Forrest Maven plugin.


--Jeff

> 
> Eventually a new forrest Cent or an Ant task will get you going faster.
> 
> -- 
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>             - verba volant, scripta manent -
>    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

Re: The sky is falling! :) Comparing Maven and Forrest (Re: NPEs on second build + rant)

[Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 09:48:43AM +0200, Marc Portier wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Turner [mailto:jefft@apache.org]
> 
> <snip />
> 
> >
> > Exactly. And why not? Because the focus has
> > always been "let's improve
> > xml.apache.org", not "let's make a generally
> > useful doc system".
> 
> <snip />
> 
> >
> > Forrest micro-optimized on one tiny section of
> > the problem-space.
> > Forrest hoped that a general solution would
> > emerge from tackling a
> 
> <snip />
> 
> 
> "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
> explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon
> :-)

Goodness, what an agressive-sounding email I wrote.. sorry :) I only
flame things I like. Forrest committers have my highest respect, and
sometimes I forget people don't know that before flaming away.

> Honnestly: I don't think we set off wrong.

Agreed. My aim was to point out an apparent long-term trend away from
'user-friendliness', and to remind people that enlightened self-interest,
if correctly nurtured, can be equally as productive as the sort of
dedication, commitment and hard slog that characterises current Forrest
committers.

> Providing usefull DTDs as forrest did works like you
> describe, they *are* getting used. (even at the moment where
> they still are under construction)
> Next step is helping those users out in actually doing more
> sensible stuff with the content they based on them.

I guess I see a more chaotic, user-needs-driven project lifecycle as
characteristic of a healthy project, but that's a bit short-sighted I
suppose.

> We haven't given the build-for-your-project enough thought
> yet. (forrestbot gave it as a side-effect)
> We knew that, you just prioritized our agenda :-)

Wohoo, rants and flames from lurkers do work ;)

... 
> > of Forrest, I'll be spending tomorrow attempting a Forrest
> Maven plugin.
> 
> We would surely welcome the Maven plugin.
> Better still, we should make it one of the real
> build-targets of forrest.

:) I'll mail when it's working. I'm currently poking through Maven
internals figuring it out.


--Jeff

> regards,
> -marc=
> 

-- 
Hell is a state of mind. And every state of mind, left to itself,
every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of it's own
mind -- is, in the end, Hell.
  C.S. Lewis, _The Great Divorce_

Re: The sky is falling! :) Comparing Maven and Forrest (Re: NPEs on second build + rant)

[Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>]

Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:51:15PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
>>Jeff Turner wrote:
>>
>>>I wrote the following blog entry about a day spent trying to use Forrest:
>>>
>>>http://www.webweavertech.com/jefft/weblog/archives/000027.html
>>>
>>>It was written just to let off steam at a wasted day, but I hope it will
>>>be accepted here in the spirit of constructive criticism, 
>>
>>Forrest is not yet ready to be used easily in other projects, because it 
>>has not been really discussed and done yet.
> 
> 
> Exactly. And why not? Because the focus has always been "let's improve
> xml.apache.org", not "let's make a generally useful doc system".
> 
> I'm suggesting that the social engineering of Forrest is subtly but
> significantly wrong. The fastest way to get a good-looking xml.apache.org
> is *not* to simply advertise that fact and get cracking, as Forrest has
> done. The goal is too abstract; not enough people care. Instead, one
> should appeal to people's self-interest; broaden the focus, say "we're
> here to make a brilliant doc system that anyone can use", and get people
> involved. THEN, if the project has evolved correctly, the secondary goal
> of a better xml.apache.org will be met.
> 
> Forrest micro-optimized on one tiny section of the problem-space.
> Forrest hoped that a general solution would emerge from tackling a
> specific problem, rather than tackling the general problem (with
> consequently more resources) and letting a specific solution
> (xml.apache.org) fall out.

In fact, the goal I have, and that many of our committers have, is to 
make Forrest work in an Intranet ant for other sites.

You are wrong in this assumption and this analysis.

What we have done is make a bot-generation possible, regardless of 
Xml.Apache.
I don't see anything wrong with this.

> As evidence for this view, I ask you again to compare Maven to Forrest.
> Both have goals of unifying the websites of their respective
> organizations (Jakarta and xml.apache.org). However with Maven, the
> unification goal is subordinate; first, they want to produce something
> cool and consequently widely used. In Forrest, the unification goal is
> explicit, and as a result Forrest is only good at generating docs for
> Forrest. Result? Despite Forrest's head-start, Maven has a much more
> dynamic community, and Jakarta sites are a lot closer to being unified
> than xml.apache.org sites.

I still have to learn in making communities.
Remember that many of us come from the world of Cocoon and Avalon, and I 
think that I'm learning a lot from the Maven and Turbine community in 
the way they get support.

> I invite everyone to read 'The Rise of "Worse is Better"':
> 
> http://www.ai.mit.edu/docs/articles/good-news/subsection3.2.1.html
> 
> 
> Practically, what I'm asking is that people take these thoughts to heart,
> and if they agree, then start giving priority to problems limiting
> adoption over problems limiting xml.apache.org coolness. The most
> immediate problem is, I'm afraid to say, the forced Centipede
> integration. By all means use Centipede to build Forrest, but don't force
> it on users. 

We never have, and never will.
Steven is definately -1 for this.

Besides, Centipede is basically Ant, so what I will do is something that 
can be used in Ant.
Of course, Centipede has autodownload and all that stuff, but like 
Maven, it's an option.

> To further crush Nicola's ego :) and to help spread adoption
> of Forrest, I'll be spending tomorrow attempting a Forrest Maven plugin.

;-) You're not crushing any ego, but making me happy.
If Forrest has a Maven plugin, it will really help its adoption, and we 
all know how a common Apache DTD would benefit all.

I have already said on many lists (the last on james-dev) that there 
will be a Maven plugin. Currently I really don't understand how to do 
them very well, and this is the reason I'm waiting to do it. I see 
massive committs to Maven, and personally I chose to wait for a more 
stable version.

But if you are ready, go for it!
I strongly support you in this :-)

If you need help, we're here :-)

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: The sky is falling! :) Comparing Maven and Forrest (Re: NPEs on second build + rant)

[Marc Portier <mp...@outerthought.org>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Turner [mailto:jefft@apache.org]

<snip />

>
> Exactly. And why not? Because the focus has
> always been "let's improve
> xml.apache.org", not "let's make a generally
> useful doc system".

<snip />

>
> Forrest micro-optimized on one tiny section of
> the problem-space.
> Forrest hoped that a general solution would
> emerge from tackling a

<snip />


"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon
:-)

Honnestly: I don't think we set off wrong.
Providing usefull DTDs as forrest did works like you
describe, they *are* getting used. (even at the moment where
they still are under construction)
Next step is helping those users out in actually doing more
sensible stuff with the content they based on them.

We haven't given the build-for-your-project enough thought
yet. (forrestbot gave it as a side-effect)
We knew that, you just prioritized our agenda :-)

Which brings me to conclude that this is OSS land... This is
where having intentions is great, but only when future
becomes history we will have the means to measure those.
Thx for catalizing the future->history process :-)


> As evidence for this view, I ask you again to
> compare Maven to Forrest.

I have a general dislike for comparisons, but you couldn't
write it on account of any bad intentions (malice) from my
part :-)

<snip />


> To further crush Nicola's ego :) and to help spread
adoption

I fail to explain your goals by means of stupidity :-)


> of Forrest, I'll be spending tomorrow attempting a Forrest
Maven plugin.

We would surely welcome the Maven plugin.
Better still, we should make it one of the real
build-targets of forrest.


regards,
-marc=