You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> on 2006/07/25 22:44:19 UTC
Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the live tuscany
website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not implemented (
e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be fixed, so
I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the new site
structure.
Categories:
Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and Documentation
sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site structure
Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think comunity in
general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing, Commiters and
Documentation section added
Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site sections are
missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to wiki), Issue
tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our website
had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the following
suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON timeframe :
- Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the one
available today on live tuscany website)
- Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
- Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with DAS diagram
and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would link to this
module overview page
- On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the "release"
link as they all point to same main download page.
With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the site in a
short period of time, and then still continue on improvements later on.
- Luciano
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Luciano Resende
SOA Opensource - Apache Tuscany
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed
as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Rick <cr...@gmail.com>.
Actually, the source is really just that
<img src ="/images/sca_composite.jpg" alt="SCA Composite"
usemap ="#scaMap" border="0" />
This is just one of those cases were the Anakia (Velocity?) processing
is messing things up. And it doesn't show up wrong in Mozillia FF only
MS IE.
BTW initially the usemap attribute was also just dropped.. had to
fiddle with it to preserve that attribute through the processing. It
looks like in this case also the alt attribute bit the dust.
Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The SCA diagram is not displayed correctly.
>
> Please change the following section in sca-index.html:
> From:
> <img src="./images/sca_composite.jpg" width="" height="" align=""
> usemap="#scaMap" />
> To:
> <img src="./images/sca_composite.jpg" border="0" usemap="#scaMap" />
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick" <cr...@gmail.com>
> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being
> proposed as part of Tuscany-568
>
>
>> I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested, added
>> a link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
>> I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put in
>> the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would be
>> added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
>> I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox
>> site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to
>> get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ?
>> People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its best
>> to get that information now before we make it "absolutely perfect".
>> I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid
>> of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the
>> first place.
>>
>> Luciano Resende wrote:
>>> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the live
>>> tuscany
>>> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
>>> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
>>> implemented (
>>> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be
>>> fixed, so
>>> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the
>>> new site
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> Categories:
>>>
>>> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
>>> Documentation
>>> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
>>>
>>> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>>>
>>> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>>>
>>> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
>>> structure
>>>
>>> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
>>>
>>> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
>>>
>>> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
>>> comunity in
>>> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
>>> Commiters and
>>> Documentation section added
>>>
>>> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site
>>> sections are
>>> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to wiki),
>>> Issue
>>> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
>>>
>>>
>>> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
>>> website
>>> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
>>> following
>>> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
>>> timeframe :
>>>
>>> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the one
>>> available today on live tuscany website)
>>> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
>>> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with DAS
>>> diagram
>>> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would link
>>> to this
>>> module overview page
>>> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
>>> "release"
>>> link as they all point to same main download page.
>>>
>>> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the
>>> site in a
>>> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements later on.
>>>
>>> - Luciano
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
The SCA diagram is not displayed correctly.
Please change the following section in sca-index.html:
From:
<img src="./images/sca_composite.jpg" width="" height="" align=""
usemap="#scaMap" />
To:
<img src="./images/sca_composite.jpg" border="0" usemap="#scaMap" />
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick" <cr...@gmail.com>
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being
proposed as part of Tuscany-568
> I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested, added a
> link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
> I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put in the
> runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would be added to the
> individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
> I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox site up
> live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to get first hand
> feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ? People don't like this
> either? Well should that be the case its best to get that information
> now before we make it "absolutely perfect".
> I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid of the
> two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the first place.
>
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the live
>> tuscany
>> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
>> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not implemented
>> (
>> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be fixed,
>> so
>> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the new
>> site
>> structure.
>>
>> Categories:
>>
>> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
>> Documentation
>> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
>>
>> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>>
>> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>>
>> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
>> structure
>>
>> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
>>
>> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
>>
>> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think comunity
>> in
>> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing, Commiters
>> and
>> Documentation section added
>>
>> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site sections are
>> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to wiki), Issue
>> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
>>
>>
>> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
>> website
>> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
>> following
>> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON timeframe
>> :
>>
>> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the one
>> available today on live tuscany website)
>> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
>> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with DAS
>> diagram
>> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would link to
>> this
>> module overview page
>> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
>> "release"
>> link as they all point to same main download page.
>>
>> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the site in
>> a
>> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements later on.
>>
>> - Luciano
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed
as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Rick <cr...@gmail.com>.
Luciano
... thanks for your review. Forgot to mention that.
Luciano Resende wrote:
> Ok, I agree we should publish the new version ASAP so we expose it as
> OSCON
> and get necessary feedback.
>
> My review was more around to make sure we were not missing important
> information with this new version of the site (e.g. the idea of having
> each
> components like DAS to have the content on it's page, but that isn't
> actually not available....). Also, I'm afraid that we might loose the
> navigation pattern we have to day, if you start going to DAS page, and
> from
> there to other detailed DAS contents, but the DAS pages itself does
> not have
> a easy way to navigate back to other areas such SCA and SDO (today you
> can
> easily use the left menu to navigate back to top level entries)...
> this is
> how I feel when I navigate deep into our WiKi today.
>
> Anyway, I'll update the DAS contents to address the contents that are
> being
> removed from the left menu and attach new zip into Tuscany-568 soon.
>
> - Luciano
>
>
> On 7/26/06, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I'll try to get some more SDO content done in any spare moments while
>> here
>> at OSCon. I've reformatted the SDO Java overview that's currently on
>> the
>> WIKI so that its suitable for dropping in, but I haven't got time to
>> fix
>> up
>> all the links riight now, so hopefully I'll put a patch up later today.
>>
>> On 26/07/06, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Rick,
>> >
>> > This is a major improvement over what we currently have and I really
>> > like how things have been cleaned up and streamlined. I'm sure I will
>> > have some suggestions in the furture but I agree this should be
>> > published ASAP assuming others agree.
>> >
>> > Some minor comments that we may want to consider at some point
>> later on:
>> >
>> > 1. In the Java projects section, splitting things down a bit further
>> > among SCA, DAS and SDO. I think we should make it more apparent the
>> > technologies may be used as well as built independently. Within SCA,
>> > I think we may want to split this even further between extensions and
>> > core at some point.
>> >
>> > 2. On the Java graphic, we should list more hosting platforms at some
>> > point (e.g. J2EE app servers, OSGi, whatever)
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Rick wrote:
>> >
>> > > I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested,
>> > > added a link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
>> > > I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put
>> > > in the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would
>> > > be added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
>> > > I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox
>> > > site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to
>> > > get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ?
>> > > People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its
>> > > best to get that information now before we make it "absolutely
>> > > perfect".
>> > > I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid
>> > > of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the
>> > > first place.
>> > >
>> > > Luciano Resende wrote:
>> > >> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the
>> > >> live tuscany
>> > >> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
>> > >> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
>> > >> implemented (
>> > >> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be
>> > >> fixed, so
>> > >> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the
>> > >> new site
>> > >> structure.
>> > >>
>> > >> Categories:
>> > >>
>> > >> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
>> > >> Documentation
>> > >> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
>> > >>
>> > >> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>> > >>
>> > >> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>> > >>
>> > >> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
>> > >> structure
>> > >>
>> > >> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
>> > >>
>> > >> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
>> > >>
>> > >> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
>> > >> comunity in
>> > >> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
>> > >> Commiters and
>> > >> Documentation section added
>> > >>
>> > >> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site
>> > >> sections are
>> > >> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to
>> > >> wiki), Issue
>> > >> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
>> > >> website
>> > >> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
>> > >> following
>> > >> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
>> > >> timeframe :
>> > >>
>> > >> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the
>> > >> one
>> > >> available today on live tuscany website)
>> > >> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
>> > >> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with
>> > >> DAS diagram
>> > >> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would
>> > >> link to this
>> > >> module overview page
>> > >> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
>> > >> "release"
>> > >> link as they all point to same main download page.
>> > >>
>> > >> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the
>> > >> site in a
>> > >> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements
>> > >> later on.
>> > >>
>> > >> - Luciano
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards
>> Kelvin Goodson
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Ok, I agree we should publish the new version ASAP so we expose it as OSCON
and get necessary feedback.
My review was more around to make sure we were not missing important
information with this new version of the site (e.g. the idea of having each
components like DAS to have the content on it's page, but that isn't
actually not available....). Also, I'm afraid that we might loose the
navigation pattern we have to day, if you start going to DAS page, and from
there to other detailed DAS contents, but the DAS pages itself does not have
a easy way to navigate back to other areas such SCA and SDO (today you can
easily use the left menu to navigate back to top level entries)... this is
how I feel when I navigate deep into our WiKi today.
Anyway, I'll update the DAS contents to address the contents that are being
removed from the left menu and attach new zip into Tuscany-568 soon.
- Luciano
On 7/26/06, kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk> wrote:
>
> I'll try to get some more SDO content done in any spare moments while here
> at OSCon. I've reformatted the SDO Java overview that's currently on the
> WIKI so that its suitable for dropping in, but I haven't got time to fix
> up
> all the links riight now, so hopefully I'll put a patch up later today.
>
> On 26/07/06, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > This is a major improvement over what we currently have and I really
> > like how things have been cleaned up and streamlined. I'm sure I will
> > have some suggestions in the furture but I agree this should be
> > published ASAP assuming others agree.
> >
> > Some minor comments that we may want to consider at some point later on:
> >
> > 1. In the Java projects section, splitting things down a bit further
> > among SCA, DAS and SDO. I think we should make it more apparent the
> > technologies may be used as well as built independently. Within SCA,
> > I think we may want to split this even further between extensions and
> > core at some point.
> >
> > 2. On the Java graphic, we should list more hosting platforms at some
> > point (e.g. J2EE app servers, OSGi, whatever)
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Rick wrote:
> >
> > > I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested,
> > > added a link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
> > > I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put
> > > in the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would
> > > be added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
> > > I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox
> > > site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to
> > > get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ?
> > > People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its
> > > best to get that information now before we make it "absolutely
> > > perfect".
> > > I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid
> > > of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the
> > > first place.
> > >
> > > Luciano Resende wrote:
> > >> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the
> > >> live tuscany
> > >> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
> > >> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
> > >> implemented (
> > >> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be
> > >> fixed, so
> > >> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the
> > >> new site
> > >> structure.
> > >>
> > >> Categories:
> > >>
> > >> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
> > >> Documentation
> > >> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
> > >>
> > >> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> > >>
> > >> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> > >>
> > >> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
> > >> structure
> > >>
> > >> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
> > >>
> > >> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
> > >>
> > >> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
> > >> comunity in
> > >> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
> > >> Commiters and
> > >> Documentation section added
> > >>
> > >> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site
> > >> sections are
> > >> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to
> > >> wiki), Issue
> > >> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
> > >> website
> > >> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
> > >> following
> > >> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
> > >> timeframe :
> > >>
> > >> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the
> > >> one
> > >> available today on live tuscany website)
> > >> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
> > >> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with
> > >> DAS diagram
> > >> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would
> > >> link to this
> > >> module overview page
> > >> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
> > >> "release"
> > >> link as they all point to same main download page.
> > >>
> > >> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the
> > >> site in a
> > >> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements
> > >> later on.
> > >>
> > >> - Luciano
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best Regards
> Kelvin Goodson
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Luciano Resende
SOA Opensource - Apache Tuscany
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by David Wheeler <wh...@gmail.com>.
I can go ahead and convert them to the SVG format.Actually, I believe I
attached the SVG formated diagram in the original zip...
On 7/26/06, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't find an way to conver viso to open office that works. Tried most
> of
> the suggestions I can find on the web. However the diagrams are not so
> complicated that I can't redraw them by hand. If someone has already made
> the conversion save me some effort and speak up now while I go and get
> some
> food.
>
> Simon
>
> On 7/26/06, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Starting to look good. I still have the source for the verview/cpp/java
> > imagesI made tbased on David's diagram. Problem is they are visio
> > diagrams. I feel that I should attach to the JIRA for safe keeping but
> > haven't got rounf to try converting to another format. I will have a
> quick
> > look over the next 30 mins and give the new site a once over also.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > On 7/26/06, Rick <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated. But
> I
> > > kindly request that patches and updates be to the
> > > tuscany\sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through
> > > the build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's
> not
> > >
> > > needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish.
> > >
> > > Also I'd like to get the source for the images checked in so others
> can
> > > edit. And a few lines what tools (openoffice?) was or could be used
> to
> > > edit them maybe a readme in the images directory.
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > kelvin goodson wrote:
> > > > I'll try to get some more SDO content done in any spare moments
> while
> > > > here
> > > > at OSCon. I've reformatted the SDO Java overview that's currently
> on
> > > the
> > > > WIKI so that its suitable for dropping in, but I haven't got time
> to
> > > > fix up
> > > > all the links riight now, so hopefully I'll put a patch up later
> > > today.
> > > >
> > > > On 26/07/06, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Rick,
> > > >>
> > > >> This is a major improvement over what we currently have and I
> really
> > > >> like how things have been cleaned up and streamlined. I'm sure I
> will
> > > >> have some suggestions in the furture but I agree this should be
> > > >> published ASAP assuming others agree.
> > > >>
> > > >> Some minor comments that we may want to consider at some point
> later
> > > on:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. In the Java projects section, splitting things down a bit
> further
> > > >> among SCA, DAS and SDO. I think we should make it more apparent the
> > > >> technologies may be used as well as built independently. Within
> SCA,
> > > >> I think we may want to split this even further between extensions
> and
> > >
> > > >> core at some point.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. On the Java graphic, we should list more hosting platforms at
> some
> > > >> point (e.g. J2EE app servers, OSGi, whatever)
> > > >>
> > > >> Jim
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Rick wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested,
> > > >> > added a link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
> > > >> > I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't
> put
> > > >> > in the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would
> > > >> > be added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
> > > >> > I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this
> sandbox
> > > >> > site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us
> to
> > > >> > get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ?
> > > >> > People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its
> > > >> > best to get that information now before we make it "absolutely
> > > >> > perfect".
> > > >> > I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a
> hybrid
> > >
> > > >> > of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in
> the
> > > >> > first place.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Luciano Resende wrote:
> > > >> >> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the
> > > >> >> live tuscany
> > > >> >> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
> > > >> >> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
> > > >> >> implemented (
> > > >> >> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to
> be
> > > >> >> fixed, so
> > > >> >> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on
> the
> > > >> >> new site
> > > >> >> structure.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Categories:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
> > > >> >> Documentation
> > > >> >> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new
> site
> > > >> >> structure
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
> > > >> >> comunity in
> > > >> >> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
> > > >> >> Commiters and
> > > >> >> Documentation section added
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site
> > > >> >> sections are
> > > >> >> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to
> > > >> >> wiki), Issue
> > > >> >> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that
> our
> > > >> >> website
> > > >> >> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have
> the
> > >
> > > >> >> following
> > > >> >> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
> > > >> >> timeframe :
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure
> (the
> > >
> > > >> >> one
> > > >> >> available today on live tuscany website)
> > > >> >> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
> > > >> >> - Add an overview page for each module ( e.g DAS overview with
> > > >> >> DAS diagram
> > > >> >> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would
> > > >> >> link to this
> > > >> >> module overview page
> > > >> >> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove
> the
> > > >> >> "release"
> > > >> >> link as they all point to same main download page.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the
> > > >> >> site in a
> > > >> >> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements
> > > >> >> later on.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> - Luciano
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Image sizes, was: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Jul 26, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> I can't find an way to conver viso to open office that works. Tried
> most of
> the suggestions I can find on the web. However the diagrams are not so
> complicated that I can't redraw them by hand. If someone has
> already made
> the conversion save me some effort and speak up now while I go and
> get some
> food.
>
If you are going to be editing them, could I ask that they be a
little smaller (about 50-66% of the current size). I am having
troubling seeing the picture on a laptop's screen without scrolling.
Thanks
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
I can't find an way to conver viso to open office that works. Tried most of
the suggestions I can find on the web. However the diagrams are not so
complicated that I can't redraw them by hand. If someone has already made
the conversion save me some effort and speak up now while I go and get some
food.
Simon
On 7/26/06, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Starting to look good. I still have the source for the verview/cpp/java
> imagesI made tbased on David's diagram. Problem is they are visio
> diagrams. I feel that I should attach to the JIRA for safe keeping but
> haven't got rounf to try converting to another format. I will have a quick
> look over the next 30 mins and give the new site a once over also.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 7/26/06, Rick <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated. But I
> > kindly request that patches and updates be to the
> > tuscany\sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through
> > the build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's not
> >
> > needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish.
> >
> > Also I'd like to get the source for the images checked in so others can
> > edit. And a few lines what tools (openoffice?) was or could be used to
> > edit them maybe a readme in the images directory.
> > Thanks
> >
> > kelvin goodson wrote:
> > > I'll try to get some more SDO content done in any spare moments while
> > > here
> > > at OSCon. I've reformatted the SDO Java overview that's currently on
> > the
> > > WIKI so that its suitable for dropping in, but I haven't got time to
> > > fix up
> > > all the links riight now, so hopefully I'll put a patch up later
> > today.
> > >
> > > On 26/07/06, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Rick,
> > >>
> > >> This is a major improvement over what we currently have and I really
> > >> like how things have been cleaned up and streamlined. I'm sure I will
> > >> have some suggestions in the furture but I agree this should be
> > >> published ASAP assuming others agree.
> > >>
> > >> Some minor comments that we may want to consider at some point later
> > on:
> > >>
> > >> 1. In the Java projects section, splitting things down a bit further
> > >> among SCA, DAS and SDO. I think we should make it more apparent the
> > >> technologies may be used as well as built independently. Within SCA,
> > >> I think we may want to split this even further between extensions and
> >
> > >> core at some point.
> > >>
> > >> 2. On the Java graphic, we should list more hosting platforms at some
> > >> point (e.g. J2EE app servers, OSGi, whatever)
> > >>
> > >> Jim
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Rick wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested,
> > >> > added a link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
> > >> > I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put
> > >> > in the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would
> > >> > be added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
> > >> > I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox
> > >> > site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to
> > >> > get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ?
> > >> > People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its
> > >> > best to get that information now before we make it "absolutely
> > >> > perfect".
> > >> > I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid
> >
> > >> > of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the
> > >> > first place.
> > >> >
> > >> > Luciano Resende wrote:
> > >> >> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the
> > >> >> live tuscany
> > >> >> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
> > >> >> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
> > >> >> implemented (
> > >> >> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be
> > >> >> fixed, so
> > >> >> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the
> > >> >> new site
> > >> >> structure.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Categories:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
> > >> >> Documentation
> > >> >> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
> > >> >>
> > >> >> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> > >> >>
> > >> >> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
> > >> >> structure
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
> > >> >>
> > >> >> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
> > >> >> comunity in
> > >> >> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
> > >> >> Commiters and
> > >> >> Documentation section added
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site
> > >> >> sections are
> > >> >> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to
> > >> >> wiki), Issue
> > >> >> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
> > >> >> website
> > >> >> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
> >
> > >> >> following
> > >> >> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
> > >> >> timeframe :
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the
> >
> > >> >> one
> > >> >> available today on live tuscany website)
> > >> >> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
> > >> >> - Add an overview page for each module ( e.g DAS overview with
> > >> >> DAS diagram
> > >> >> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would
> > >> >> link to this
> > >> >> module overview page
> > >> >> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
> > >> >> "release"
> > >> >> link as they all point to same main download page.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the
> > >> >> site in a
> > >> >> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements
> > >> >> later on.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Luciano
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Starting to look good. I still have the source for the verview/cpp/java
imagesI made tbased on David's diagram. Problem is they are visio
diagrams. I feel that I should attach to the JIRA for safe keeping but
haven't got rounf to try converting to another format. I will have a quick
look over the next 30 mins and give the new site a once over also.
Regards
Simon
On 7/26/06, Rick <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated. But I
> kindly request that patches and updates be to the
> tuscany\sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through
> the build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's not
> needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish.
>
> Also I'd like to get the source for the images checked in so others can
> edit. And a few lines what tools (openoffice?) was or could be used to
> edit them maybe a readme in the images directory.
> Thanks
>
> kelvin goodson wrote:
> > I'll try to get some more SDO content done in any spare moments while
> > here
> > at OSCon. I've reformatted the SDO Java overview that's currently on
> the
> > WIKI so that its suitable for dropping in, but I haven't got time to
> > fix up
> > all the links riight now, so hopefully I'll put a patch up later today.
> >
> > On 26/07/06, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Rick,
> >>
> >> This is a major improvement over what we currently have and I really
> >> like how things have been cleaned up and streamlined. I'm sure I will
> >> have some suggestions in the furture but I agree this should be
> >> published ASAP assuming others agree.
> >>
> >> Some minor comments that we may want to consider at some point later
> on:
> >>
> >> 1. In the Java projects section, splitting things down a bit further
> >> among SCA, DAS and SDO. I think we should make it more apparent the
> >> technologies may be used as well as built independently. Within SCA,
> >> I think we may want to split this even further between extensions and
> >> core at some point.
> >>
> >> 2. On the Java graphic, we should list more hosting platforms at some
> >> point (e.g. J2EE app servers, OSGi, whatever)
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Rick wrote:
> >>
> >> > I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested,
> >> > added a link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
> >> > I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put
> >> > in the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would
> >> > be added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
> >> > I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox
> >> > site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to
> >> > get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ?
> >> > People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its
> >> > best to get that information now before we make it "absolutely
> >> > perfect".
> >> > I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid
> >> > of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the
> >> > first place.
> >> >
> >> > Luciano Resende wrote:
> >> >> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the
> >> >> live tuscany
> >> >> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
> >> >> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
> >> >> implemented (
> >> >> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be
> >> >> fixed, so
> >> >> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the
> >> >> new site
> >> >> structure.
> >> >>
> >> >> Categories:
> >> >>
> >> >> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
> >> >> Documentation
> >> >> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
> >> >>
> >> >> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> >> >>
> >> >> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> >> >>
> >> >> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
> >> >> structure
> >> >>
> >> >> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
> >> >>
> >> >> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
> >> >>
> >> >> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
> >> >> comunity in
> >> >> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
> >> >> Commiters and
> >> >> Documentation section added
> >> >>
> >> >> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site
> >> >> sections are
> >> >> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to
> >> >> wiki), Issue
> >> >> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
> >> >> website
> >> >> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
> >> >> following
> >> >> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
> >> >> timeframe :
> >> >>
> >> >> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the
> >> >> one
> >> >> available today on live tuscany website)
> >> >> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
> >> >> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with
> >> >> DAS diagram
> >> >> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would
> >> >> link to this
> >> >> module overview page
> >> >> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
> >> >> "release"
> >> >> link as they all point to same main download page.
> >> >>
> >> >> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the
> >> >> site in a
> >> >> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements
> >> >> later on.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Luciano
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by David Wheeler <wh...@gmail.com>.
I have posted an updated zip with cleaned up images and attached it to the
JIRA.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-568
On 7/26/06, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have attached a new zip file with DAS Contents (
> site-author.lresende.20060726.zip) to Tuscany-568 (
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-568)
>
> - Luciano
>
> On 7/26/06, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ok,
> >
> > Have taken David's advice and used Inkscape. Worked very well. Have
> > attached
> > a new zip (site-author-sl-270706.zip) to 568 (
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-568) with:
> >
> > Image source for the index images
> > Pngs for the images
> > Updated index pages and maps
> > Place holder tools page.
> >
> > I haven't reduced the size of the SCA diagram as I don't have the
> source.
> > Did we establish if there is a way of scaling images and maps without
> > resorting to changing the source?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > On 7/26/06, David Wheeler <wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since keeping all the documents editable with open source editors
> seems
> > to
> > > be a priority, may I suggest we standardize on Inkscape
> > > svg<http://www.inkscape.org/>.
> > > Or have we already standardized on the OpenOffice draw format?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/26/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Rick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated.
> > > > > But I kindly request that patches and updates be to the tuscany
> > > > > \sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through the
> > > > > build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's
> > > > > not needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps for now we just stop maintaining site-publish in SVN (it
> > > > would certainly reduce the size of the deltas).
> > > > Ultimately we need to have it there to support Apache's
> > > > Infrastructure but until we move this to be the main site then it
> > > > should not be needed.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jeremy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Luciano Resende
> SOA Opensource - Apache Tuscany
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
I have attached a new zip file with DAS Contents (
site-author.lresende.20060726.zip) to Tuscany-568 (
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-568)
- Luciano
On 7/26/06, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Ok,
>
> Have taken David's advice and used Inkscape. Worked very well. Have
> attached
> a new zip (site-author-sl-270706.zip) to 568 (
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-568) with:
>
> Image source for the index images
> Pngs for the images
> Updated index pages and maps
> Place holder tools page.
>
> I haven't reduced the size of the SCA diagram as I don't have the source.
> Did we establish if there is a way of scaling images and maps without
> resorting to changing the source?
>
> Simon
>
> On 7/26/06, David Wheeler <wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Since keeping all the documents editable with open source editors seems
> to
> > be a priority, may I suggest we standardize on Inkscape
> > svg<http://www.inkscape.org/>.
> > Or have we already standardized on the OpenOffice draw format?
> >
> >
> > On 7/26/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Rick wrote:
> > >
> > > > I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated.
> > > > But I kindly request that patches and updates be to the tuscany
> > > > \sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through the
> > > > build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's
> > > > not needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish.
> > >
> > > Perhaps for now we just stop maintaining site-publish in SVN (it
> > > would certainly reduce the size of the deltas).
> > > Ultimately we need to have it there to support Apache's
> > > Infrastructure but until we move this to be the main site then it
> > > should not be needed.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeremy
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Luciano Resende
SOA Opensource - Apache Tuscany
-----------------------------------------------------
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Ok,
Have taken David's advice and used Inkscape. Worked very well. Have attached
a new zip (site-author-sl-270706.zip) to 568 (
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-568) with:
Image source for the index images
Pngs for the images
Updated index pages and maps
Place holder tools page.
I haven't reduced the size of the SCA diagram as I don't have the source.
Did we establish if there is a way of scaling images and maps without
resorting to changing the source?
Simon
On 7/26/06, David Wheeler <wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since keeping all the documents editable with open source editors seems to
> be a priority, may I suggest we standardize on Inkscape
> svg<http://www.inkscape.org/>.
> Or have we already standardized on the OpenOffice draw format?
>
>
> On 7/26/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Rick wrote:
> >
> > > I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated.
> > > But I kindly request that patches and updates be to the tuscany
> > > \sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through the
> > > build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's
> > > not needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish.
> >
> > Perhaps for now we just stop maintaining site-publish in SVN (it
> > would certainly reduce the size of the deltas).
> > Ultimately we need to have it there to support Apache's
> > Infrastructure but until we move this to be the main site then it
> > should not be needed.
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by David Wheeler <wh...@gmail.com>.
Since keeping all the documents editable with open source editors seems to
be a priority, may I suggest we standardize on Inkscape
svg<http://www.inkscape.org/>.
Or have we already standardized on the OpenOffice draw format?
On 7/26/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Rick wrote:
>
> > I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated.
> > But I kindly request that patches and updates be to the tuscany
> > \sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through the
> > build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's
> > not needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish.
>
> Perhaps for now we just stop maintaining site-publish in SVN (it
> would certainly reduce the size of the deltas).
> Ultimately we need to have it there to support Apache's
> Infrastructure but until we move this to be the main site then it
> should not be needed.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Rick wrote:
> I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated.
> But I kindly request that patches and updates be to the tuscany
> \sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through the
> build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's
> not needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish.
Perhaps for now we just stop maintaining site-publish in SVN (it
would certainly reduce the size of the deltas).
Ultimately we need to have it there to support Apache's
Infrastructure but until we move this to be the main site then it
should not be needed.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed
as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Rick <cr...@gmail.com>.
I may be miss interpreting or reading too much in what you stated. But I
kindly request that patches and updates be to the
tuscany\sandbox\site\site-author files. That they've been run through
the build tool ok using the tuscany\sandbox\site\build script. It's not
needed to include in the patch/update the site-publish.
Also I'd like to get the source for the images checked in so others can
edit. And a few lines what tools (openoffice?) was or could be used to
edit them maybe a readme in the images directory.
Thanks
kelvin goodson wrote:
> I'll try to get some more SDO content done in any spare moments while
> here
> at OSCon. I've reformatted the SDO Java overview that's currently on the
> WIKI so that its suitable for dropping in, but I haven't got time to
> fix up
> all the links riight now, so hopefully I'll put a patch up later today.
>
> On 26/07/06, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rick,
>>
>> This is a major improvement over what we currently have and I really
>> like how things have been cleaned up and streamlined. I'm sure I will
>> have some suggestions in the furture but I agree this should be
>> published ASAP assuming others agree.
>>
>> Some minor comments that we may want to consider at some point later on:
>>
>> 1. In the Java projects section, splitting things down a bit further
>> among SCA, DAS and SDO. I think we should make it more apparent the
>> technologies may be used as well as built independently. Within SCA,
>> I think we may want to split this even further between extensions and
>> core at some point.
>>
>> 2. On the Java graphic, we should list more hosting platforms at some
>> point (e.g. J2EE app servers, OSGi, whatever)
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Rick wrote:
>>
>> > I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested,
>> > added a link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
>> > I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put
>> > in the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would
>> > be added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
>> > I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox
>> > site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to
>> > get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ?
>> > People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its
>> > best to get that information now before we make it "absolutely
>> > perfect".
>> > I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid
>> > of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the
>> > first place.
>> >
>> > Luciano Resende wrote:
>> >> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the
>> >> live tuscany
>> >> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
>> >> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
>> >> implemented (
>> >> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be
>> >> fixed, so
>> >> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the
>> >> new site
>> >> structure.
>> >>
>> >> Categories:
>> >>
>> >> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
>> >> Documentation
>> >> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
>> >>
>> >> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>> >>
>> >> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>> >>
>> >> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
>> >> structure
>> >>
>> >> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
>> >>
>> >> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
>> >>
>> >> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
>> >> comunity in
>> >> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
>> >> Commiters and
>> >> Documentation section added
>> >>
>> >> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site
>> >> sections are
>> >> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to
>> >> wiki), Issue
>> >> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
>> >> website
>> >> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
>> >> following
>> >> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
>> >> timeframe :
>> >>
>> >> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the
>> >> one
>> >> available today on live tuscany website)
>> >> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
>> >> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with
>> >> DAS diagram
>> >> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would
>> >> link to this
>> >> module overview page
>> >> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
>> >> "release"
>> >> link as they all point to same main download page.
>> >>
>> >> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the
>> >> site in a
>> >> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements
>> >> later on.
>> >>
>> >> - Luciano
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@thegoodsons.org.uk>.
I'll try to get some more SDO content done in any spare moments while here
at OSCon. I've reformatted the SDO Java overview that's currently on the
WIKI so that its suitable for dropping in, but I haven't got time to fix up
all the links riight now, so hopefully I'll put a patch up later today.
On 26/07/06, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> This is a major improvement over what we currently have and I really
> like how things have been cleaned up and streamlined. I'm sure I will
> have some suggestions in the furture but I agree this should be
> published ASAP assuming others agree.
>
> Some minor comments that we may want to consider at some point later on:
>
> 1. In the Java projects section, splitting things down a bit further
> among SCA, DAS and SDO. I think we should make it more apparent the
> technologies may be used as well as built independently. Within SCA,
> I think we may want to split this even further between extensions and
> core at some point.
>
> 2. On the Java graphic, we should list more hosting platforms at some
> point (e.g. J2EE app servers, OSGi, whatever)
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Rick wrote:
>
> > I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested,
> > added a link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
> > I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put
> > in the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would
> > be added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
> > I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox
> > site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to
> > get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ?
> > People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its
> > best to get that information now before we make it "absolutely
> > perfect".
> > I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid
> > of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the
> > first place.
> >
> > Luciano Resende wrote:
> >> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the
> >> live tuscany
> >> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
> >> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
> >> implemented (
> >> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be
> >> fixed, so
> >> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the
> >> new site
> >> structure.
> >>
> >> Categories:
> >>
> >> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
> >> Documentation
> >> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
> >>
> >> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> >>
> >> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
> >>
> >> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
> >> structure
> >>
> >> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
> >>
> >> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
> >>
> >> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
> >> comunity in
> >> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
> >> Commiters and
> >> Documentation section added
> >>
> >> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site
> >> sections are
> >> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to
> >> wiki), Issue
> >> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
> >>
> >>
> >> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
> >> website
> >> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
> >> following
> >> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
> >> timeframe :
> >>
> >> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the
> >> one
> >> available today on live tuscany website)
> >> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
> >> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with
> >> DAS diagram
> >> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would
> >> link to this
> >> module overview page
> >> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
> >> "release"
> >> link as they all point to same main download page.
> >>
> >> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the
> >> site in a
> >> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements
> >> later on.
> >>
> >> - Luciano
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Best Regards
Kelvin Goodson
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
Rick,
This is a major improvement over what we currently have and I really
like how things have been cleaned up and streamlined. I'm sure I will
have some suggestions in the furture but I agree this should be
published ASAP assuming others agree.
Some minor comments that we may want to consider at some point later on:
1. In the Java projects section, splitting things down a bit further
among SCA, DAS and SDO. I think we should make it more apparent the
technologies may be used as well as built independently. Within SCA,
I think we may want to split this even further between extensions and
core at some point.
2. On the Java graphic, we should list more hosting platforms at some
point (e.g. J2EE app servers, OSGi, whatever)
Jim
On Jul 26, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Rick wrote:
> I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested,
> added a link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
> I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put
> in the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would
> be added to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
> I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox
> site up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to
> get first hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ?
> People don't like this either? Well should that be the case its
> best to get that information now before we make it "absolutely
> perfect".
> I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid
> of the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the
> first place.
>
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the
>> live tuscany
>> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
>> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
>> implemented (
>> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be
>> fixed, so
>> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the
>> new site
>> structure.
>>
>> Categories:
>>
>> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
>> Documentation
>> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
>>
>> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>>
>> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>>
>> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
>> structure
>>
>> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
>>
>> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
>>
>> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
>> comunity in
>> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
>> Commiters and
>> Documentation section added
>>
>> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site
>> sections are
>> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to
>> wiki), Issue
>> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
>>
>>
>> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
>> website
>> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
>> following
>> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
>> timeframe :
>>
>> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the
>> one
>> available today on live tuscany website)
>> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
>> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with
>> DAS diagram
>> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would
>> link to this
>> module overview page
>> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
>> "release"
>> link as they all point to same main download page.
>>
>> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the
>> site in a
>> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements
>> later on.
>>
>> - Luciano
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Comparison between live tuscany website and what's being proposed
as part of Tuscany-568
Posted by Rick <cr...@gmail.com>.
I've added in the news, and moved reporting bugs as suggested, added a
link to the blog and fixed several bad links.
I didn't want the left menu to become cluttered, so I didn't put in
the runtime stuff since I was thinking that information would be added
to the individual Java, C++, DAS etc content pages.
I'm of a different opinion, I think we should now get this sandbox site
up live and use the opportunity that the OSCON BOF gives us to get first
hand feedback. What's the worse that can come of it ? People don't like
this either? Well should that be the case its best to get that
information now before we make it "absolutely perfect".
I'm really opposed to starting another effort of producing a hybrid of
the two in a mad dash which is not where we wanted to go in the first place.
Luciano Resende wrote:
> I took sometime today to evaluate what's available today on the live
> tuscany
> website and what's being proposed as part of Tuscany-568.
> Looks like couple page links on the Tuscany-568 are still not
> implemented (
> e.g page not found), but I'm assuming these issues are going to be
> fixed, so
> I concentrate on areas that are available today and missing on the new
> site
> structure.
>
> Categories:
>
> Tuscany: Looks like the new proposed site gets rid of News and
> Documentation
> sections, and adds License, ASF, Javadoc and TCK
>
> SCA Runtime for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>
> SDO for Java : Missing on the new site structure
>
> Relational Data Access Service for Java : Missing on the new site
> structure
>
> Sca Runtime for C++ : Missing on the new site structure
>
> SDO for C++: Missing on the new site structure
>
> Community: Reporting bugs moved to development (altough i think
> comunity in
> general is interested on this as well), Requirements missing,
> Commiters and
> Documentation section added
>
> Development: Java project, C++ Project and Building the site sections are
> missing. Added Roadmap, Source code, Code standards (link to wiki), Issue
> tracking (moved from Comunity) and dependencies
>
>
> As I think the main idea was to incorporate user feedback that our
> website
> had too many text and very little images, diagrams, etc I have the
> following
> suggestion to get a new and improved version on-line for OSCON
> timeframe :
>
> - Maintain the current website outline navigation structure (the one
> available today on live tuscany website)
> - Replace the main page with the one proposed on Tuscany-568
> - Add an overview page for each module (e.g DAS overview with DAS
> diagram
> and high level object diagram), and the main page diagram would link
> to this
> module overview page
> - On the SCA, SDO and DAS section on the left panel, remove the
> "release"
> link as they all point to same main download page.
>
> With this, i think we could still get an improved version of the site
> in a
> short period of time, and then still continue on improvements later on.
>
> - Luciano
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org