You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@turbine.apache.org by Jeff Linwood <je...@greenninja.com> on 2003/03/15 19:41:13 UTC
Turibne Concepts
So it looks like my Turbine Concepts article fits into the outline of
the user's guide - should we use it as a base, or should I rewrite it as
an xdoc and submit it as it stands to the Turbine documentation?
jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Turibne Concepts
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 15:41, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>
> >consider you a foe, I essentially consider you a bad thing that has
> >happened to Turbine.
>
> Care to elaborate?
I thought I did. That you make many changes but there is little or no
discussion in the IRC logs or on the mailing lists. I'm completely fine
with informal discussions, that's generally how things have been done.
You admittedly also have a "secret agenda" which also doesn't sound like
a good thing.
> What exactly do you consider "bad"? That I work on a code base that
> you consider dead?
But that's not where you're heading. You are working in a direction that
is replication of what's in Turbine 3.x. The Turbine 2.x code is dead
but you're doing exactly the same things I've already done with the 3.x
code and after I did that I realized it was still heavily flawed. So
yes, you're working on the 2.x code base which is, I believe a dead end,
but you are trying to take it to the same place it is already in 3.x by
replicating work and ignoring mechanisms like Avalon.
> That people like Martin Poeschl got a Turbine 2.2
> release done instead of simply telling people "Hey, we moved on to
> something completely new, either you follow us or you must live with
> the broken Turbine 2.1 / 2.2-dev code".
I did move on, I don't see anything wrong with that. I have a 2.x
application which works just fine but in the face of change it has many,
many, inumerable limitations and I want to provide something better. I
know the 2.x code backward and forward and it's fundamentally flawed and
you can't fix it without drastically changing the underpinnings. I never
intended to take as long as I did in providing a solution but that's how
things go. I make no apology as work and life make little time.
> Why do you say
>
> 12:10:15 PM <jason> i honestly thing that's great that you're working
> with 2.x, users need it." (http://irc.werken.com/channels/turbine/3-13-03.txt)
>
> if you actually think that I'm "essentially a bad thing that happened
> to Turbine"?
In the respect that you provide patches and fixes that 2.x users require
I think it's great. In the direction you are taking the code I think
that's bad. As a maintenance effort superb, as a future endeavor I think
dangerous. Having good and bad aspects simultaneously is not impossible.
I'm not trying to relegate your efforts to that of a 'janitor' as you
put it. I just think efforts now would serve 2.x users to find a way to
run 2.x apps inside Summit (which will run inside Avalon containers
other than Plexus) where there is the pipeline and pluggagle everything.
This path could incorporate any and all code that has been worked on to
date but allow users any path they wish to take in the future because
everything is pluggable.
> That the remaining developers try to clean up the confusion around
> Turbine, Version 2.x, T3, Fulcrum and all this stuff and want users to
> actually be able to follow the direction we want to go?
Who is we? I am still one of the we and I guarantee you I will have a
decent chance at convincing a large portion of the user base with
working code that Summit can provide a solution. In addition that Plexus
coupled with Summit can provide an even better solution when users
discover that they would like something other than a webview for their
application models.
I am not opposed to separating the repositories to be run as different
projects. I'm all for it. Like I said I'm not going to interfere with
the 2.x code. I ultimately think it's a dead end. I will get 2.x
applications to run in Summit and I will provide a path, one path. You
follow your path and we'll let the users decide. I have zero problem
with that.
If you want to partitiion off the repositories into separate pseudo
projects that is completely within our juridiction to do. My path is
clear: I'm going to create a set of tools based on Plexus, Maven and a
series of Maven plugins to provide a application framework that works
from the model as the fundamental unit of work. This is not what Turbine
currently is and one of its fundamental limitations. The model clearly
separate from the view, a component-based system with clear separation
of concerns. Turbine in it's current form is a universe away from that.
Pete has deployed his first application with Plexus/Summit and I have
deployed a couple betas and I'm at the point where it is possible to
start documenting everything and making a pitch to Turbine 2.x users.
> Is this in
> your opinion a bad thing? That we might move in baby steps, care about
> the deprecation rules that you yourself helped setting up, try to have
> stable releases before doing something new? Do you consider this
> "bad"?
There are times when this is good and there are times when this isn't.
The number of times you will have to deprecate across versions is going
to be huge. If you want to take that path that's fine, in this
particular case I think that it would be easier in the long run for
users to adhere to better practices and try to work in a component-based
environment. I think Turbine is highly functional, no one will argue
that but is flawed in far too many ways to ever be a tool that can be
learned and extended quickly. My primary concern is not to have a tool
with a high rate of adoption as that would be a natural side effect of
having a good body of code and that's never going to happen with Turbine
in it's current form. Hasn't happened in last 4 years and it's not going
to happen without fundamental change.
> That at least some developers try to restore confidence into the
> Turbine code base; that it will have a future as "Turbine" instead of
> creating half a dozen subprojects with cool names which never had any
> official releases and then got abandoned over night (JCS, Fulcrum,
> Stratum) or folded at some point into another apache project. Do you
> _honestly_ think that this was "a good thing" to happen to Turbine?
The split should only ever have been used in the Turbine 3.x code base.
I have said before it was a mistake to have ever introduced any of
these changes into 2.x. But otherwise, yes I think the decoupling of
Fulcrum and Torque were a good thing. People wanted to use Fulcrum
because Scarab was driving the development of many of the services that
people wanted.
Hindsight always provides a better view and in retrospect I would have
been happy if Turbine 2.x was left alone. It's easy to attack what's
happened in the past but it's not like I had any malicious intent. I was
trying to separate the code in an attempt to make it available to a
wider audience but the coupling was too hard to overcome and I started
looking for other alternatives.
Again, pursue your path. We can create create fully separated projects.
I don't agree with what you're doing. But we don't have to agree. You
are free to do what you like as am I. If you can convince 2.x users that
you've got what they need then great, but I'm going to try to do the
same. I do feel responsible for how I split up the code and left things
hanging but I honestly didn't have a solution to offer until recently.
> That you gave up at one point, pulled your code out of the Jakarta
> CVS, because (at least that's what my memory tells me, sorry if I'm
> wrong here) you prefer working on this off-jakarta. Why didn't you try
> to communicate with the developers who are not present @ irc but
> preferred to move out?
I certainly had and still have my doubts about Jakarta. I am far more
involved in the under belly and have a far better understanding of what
goes on around here. What I did or didn't do at this point I feel is
irrelevant. What's important is that I'm going to try and offer
something back.
I definitely think it was a better idea to develop Summit outside of
Jakarta. Turbine 3 took a path I definitely didn't expect. I worked on
it as an experiment, an initial refactoring of Turbine 2 and I didn't
want it used but it was and I stopped aggressively changing it because
there were people trying to deploy apps. I'm happy that Plexus/Summit
have incubated elsewhere. I don't see a problem with that as anyone who
was interested from Turbine has participated in Plexus/Summit. We also
had two users who became core developers so I don't see it as a negative
thing at all.
> I simply don't understand you. Maybe it's my lack of language command.
> Maybe I don't really understand your motivations or you have some
> motives that you don't want to reveal yet, which drive you to do what
> you do. Sorry, I'm lost here.
I'll try to explain in further messages and documentation. I don't wish
to cause any more unecessary confusion.
> I wish you all the best with Plexus/Summit and if you really crush the
> current Turbine development under your foot, I hope you will get
> satisfaction out of it and if all the Turbine users come crawling to
> the great unified web application solution, great.
I'm not trying to crush anything, I'm trying to continue what I started
long ago. I don't feel obliged to explain my hiatus but I'm certainly
going to try and provide what I initially intended.
> But please, until then, let the remaining Turbine developers work on
> what _they_ consider useful and if you feel not being involved in
> discussions about the Turbine code base, maybe its because you're
> (your words) no longer a committer in the true sense of the word.
I am not a committer on the 2.x code base, but any of the decoupling as
well as Turbine 3.x I consider primarly my work which I plan to pursue
with Plexus and Summit.
> I (and I think every other Turbine developer but I can't really speak
> for them) do welcome you, your opinions and ideas on the -dev
> list. But you might understand, even if you don't like it, that we
> might move at a slower pace or even with other ideas than you do.
That's cool. I will try in that respect to paint a picture of what I
think would be an ideal solution. Something that lets people work from
the application model and building out from that where different views
can be added as components and concerns like security can be added upon
the model and not intrinsically bound to it.
I'm not expecting anyone to jump aboard anytime quickly. I don't mind
working at this but I think the let of tools are finally available to
make this happen.
> And because the developers don't use irc.werken.com to discuss, this
> doesn't mean that there is no discussion at all.
I realize that, but I do follow the mailing lists as well and do see
much in the way architectural discussion. I'm always getting slagged for
not providing much in the way of a roadmap but I don't see one around
here either. At any rate I started the Maven roadmap today and will try
to do the same shortly for what I see as the roadmap for Turbine.
> Regards
> Henning
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Turibne Concepts
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>consider you a foe, I essentially consider you a bad thing that has
>happened to Turbine.
Care to elaborate?
What exactly do you consider "bad"? That I work on a code base that
you consider dead? That people like Martin Poeschl got a Turbine 2.2
release done instead of simply telling people "Hey, we moved on to
something completely new, either you follow us or you must live with
the broken Turbine 2.1 / 2.2-dev code".
Why do you say
12:10:15 PM <jason> i honestly thing that's great that you're working
with 2.x, users need it." (http://irc.werken.com/channels/turbine/3-13-03.txt)
if you actually think that I'm "essentially a bad thing that happened
to Turbine"?
That the remaining developers try to clean up the confusion around
Turbine, Version 2.x, T3, Fulcrum and all this stuff and want users to
actually be able to follow the direction we want to go? Is this in
your opinion a bad thing? That we might move in baby steps, care about
the deprecation rules that you yourself helped setting up, try to have
stable releases before doing something new? Do you consider this
"bad"?
That at least some developers try to restore confidence into the
Turbine code base; that it will have a future as "Turbine" instead of
creating half a dozen subprojects with cool names which never had any
official releases and then got abandoned over night (JCS, Fulcrum,
Stratum) or folded at some point into another apache project. Do you
_honestly_ think that this was "a good thing" to happen to Turbine?
That you gave up at one point, pulled your code out of the Jakarta
CVS, because (at least that's what my memory tells me, sorry if I'm
wrong here) you prefer working on this off-jakarta. Why didn't you try
to communicate with the developers who are not present @ irc but
preferred to move out?
I simply don't understand you. Maybe it's my lack of language command.
Maybe I don't really understand your motivations or you have some
motives that you don't want to reveal yet, which drive you to do what
you do. Sorry, I'm lost here.
I wish you all the best with Plexus/Summit and if you really crush the
current Turbine development under your foot, I hope you will get
satisfaction out of it and if all the Turbine users come crawling to
the great unified web application solution, great.
But please, until then, let the remaining Turbine developers work on
what _they_ consider useful and if you feel not being involved in
discussions about the Turbine code base, maybe its because you're
(your words) no longer a committer in the true sense of the word.
I (and I think every other Turbine developer but I can't really speak
for them) do welcome you, your opinions and ideas on the -dev
list. But you might understand, even if you don't like it, that we
might move at a slower pace or even with other ideas than you do.
And because the developers don't use irc.werken.com to discuss, this
doesn't mean that there is no discussion at all.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Turibne Concepts
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 09:33, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>
> The question is:
>
> Are you still around here in the real sense of a developer and committer?
>
> or
>
> Are you no longer a committer in any real sense?
Most definitely as you will soon find out once maven.apache.org is up
and running. This has been the plan for a long period of time. My
committment is to the Turbine project not to the 2.x codebase
specifically.
> At least I would be very grateful if you would finally decide what you
> want. I'm unhappy that you walk around @ irc calling me "a foe" and
> want to go "toe to toe" with me and "really give me a fight" but then
> barge in when finally someone wants to tackle the documentation
> problem of a project you don't really care any longer about.
Henning don't assume that you know what my intentions are. And if you
look far back I did not start the conflict that started between us. I
find you generally confrontational, devisive and tactless. I don't
consider you a foe, I essentially consider you a bad thing that has
happened to Turbine. I don't really think about you on a personal level.
If someone wants to make some docuementation then great. Write some
documentation. Like I said before: grand Turbine documentation projects
have been proposed before and not much has resulted. I'm not trying to
be a stick in the mud, just speaking from the perspective of being
around here for a while.
> So what will it be?
>
> >1) Docbook is massive and for the most part it's overkill for the type
> [...]
> >2) If it is desired to support multiple formats that is fine but the
> [...]
>
> Your objections have surely been noted by Chris and whoever will be on
> the documentation team. I personally will work there only as someone
> who gives his code knowledge to the team and I will go with whatever
> these guys decide to use.
The primary discussions should be the organization of content. As I said
in the previous message anyone can write documentation in any format and
I will convert it. But before any great lengthly discussions occur the
users here should be presented with a view of what the future could be
like.
>
> So even if you have any personal problems with me, please keep them
> aside and argue from an objective point of view.
As I've said before I don't care about you personally. I care about the
project.
> > anakia format has been around a long time and serves it's purpose well
> > and should remain the primary format.
>
> Where is the "anakia" format documented,
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jakarta-site-tags.html
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jakarta-site-tags-example.html
Which has served many of the Jakarta sites. It's really not that
complicated.
> how can the docs team write
> docs in this format efficiently and what tools are available to work
> with this format. Into which formats can it be converted? Will you
> actively work with Chris and other potential doc writers or will you
> simply block everything that does not fit your grand vision?
I am not blocking the writing of documentation. Please, lets gather some
documentation before assembling the grand "Documentation Team". The
assembly of the content is far more important. What I'm afraid of is
discussion will center around the tool, a great deal of effort will be
exerted converting everything and then the effort will peter out. If the
documentation is created, the format found to be limiting then it is
very easy to convert it. It's just not practical to again go though a
conversion process when there is no addition content. It just doesn't
make sense.
> Why do you come rushing in with "This will not happen as long as I'm
> around", trying to block any possible progress while you publicly
> stated that you don't work with the current T2 code any longer?
I am not interested in the 2.x codebase but that doesn't mean I'm not
interested in users being able to run 2.x code and move toward a more
coherent component-based system like Avalon where true maintainability
is possible and for which there is a great body of literature to draw
from which is only a benefit to users.
> You said that you consider at least my work with the T2 code as
> "irrelevant" and think that everything I do on the current code base
> has already been done very much better in other projects (at least you
> said so in public on #turbine @ irc.werken.com) . So, why do you even
> bother to hang around here anymore?
I do believe that Turbine 2.x is largely irrelavant as a code base and
you are just replicating what's already been done. For what reason I'm
not entirely sure. I stick around because I do care about the users. As
my role draws to a close in getting maven.apache.org up and running my
desire to create a coherent application framework will return as my
primary concern. I have been very much undecided about where I would
like things like Plexus/Summit to land and that has been coloured
heavily by my interactions with the Board and my general feeling of how
things work at Jakarta. A great deal of conflict has either been
resolved or set aside and the Board sanctioned maven.apache.org so at
least as far as the future of Turbine is involved I am much more
hopeful.
Unlike you I am not going to make any assumptions and as I've stated
before I will fully disclose what I'm doing and give people the option.
Do I have opinions, of course. Do I have vision, most certainly. But I
definitely don't like way you do things which seem to be a great deal of
change with no colloration in any of the known forums. You don't seem to
discuss anything in IRC and I never see any discussion before you drop
in a great deal of code change. I have often made swift changes to the
code base but there has always been some modicum of discussion on IRC.
Again, my interest in is the users, not you personally.
> Regards
> Henning
>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Turibne Concepts
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 17:40, Chris K Chew wrote:
>> Hi Jeff.
>>
>> It will definitely fit in!
>>
>> But I suggest you wait a bit...There is talk about going away from xdoc
>> towards something more robust like docbook.
>That's not going to happen so long as I'm around here.
Jason,
while everyone of the current active Turbine developers really
appreciate your input and vast knowledge and vision, IMVHO it is
simply not possible that you do things like the 1.85 checkin to the
turbine-2 repo:
--- cut ---
Revision 1.85 / Sun Feb 9 14:53:28 2003 UTC (4 weeks, 6 days ago) by jvanzyl
[...]
o I am no longer a committer in any real sense.
--- cut ---
and then, when the active committers and users start discussing some
changes which many of us want, you pop up again, saying
"That's not going to happen so long as I'm around here."
The question is:
Are you still around here in the real sense of a developer and committer?
or
Are you no longer a committer in any real sense?
At least I would be very grateful if you would finally decide what you
want. I'm unhappy that you walk around @ irc calling me "a foe" and
want to go "toe to toe" with me and "really give me a fight" but then
barge in when finally someone wants to tackle the documentation
problem of a project you don't really care any longer about.
So what will it be?
>1) Docbook is massive and for the most part it's overkill for the type
[...]
>2) If it is desired to support multiple formats that is fine but the
[...]
Your objections have surely been noted by Chris and whoever will be on
the documentation team. I personally will work there only as someone
who gives his code knowledge to the team and I will go with whatever
these guys decide to use.
So even if you have any personal problems with me, please keep them
aside and argue from an objective point of view.
> anakia format has been around a long time and serves it's purpose well
> and should remain the primary format.
Where is the "anakia" format documented, how can the docs team write
docs in this format efficiently and what tools are available to work
with this format. Into which formats can it be converted? Will you
actively work with Chris and other potential doc writers or will you
simply block everything that does not fit your grand vision?
Why do you come rushing in with "This will not happen as long as I'm
around", trying to block any possible progress while you publicly
stated that you don't work with the current T2 code any longer?
You said that you consider at least my work with the T2 code as
"irrelevant" and think that everything I do on the current code base
has already been done very much better in other projects (at least you
said so in public on #turbine @ irc.werken.com) . So, why do you even
bother to hang around here anymore?
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Turibne Concepts
Posted by Chris K Chew <ch...@fenetics.com>.
Okay, Jeff.
I guess it will be best to put it into the wiki. We can build up the
contents of the wiki manual version and then figure out how to make it more
"official".
Thanks!
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jason@zenplex.com]
>
> On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 17:40, Chris K Chew wrote:
> > Hi Jeff.
> >
> > It will definitely fit in!
> >
> > But I suggest you wait a bit...There is talk about going away from xdoc
> > towards something more robust like docbook.
>
> That's not going to happen so long as I'm around here.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Turibne Concepts
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 17:40, Chris K Chew wrote:
> Hi Jeff.
>
> It will definitely fit in!
>
> But I suggest you wait a bit...There is talk about going away from xdoc
> towards something more robust like docbook.
That's not going to happen so long as I'm around here.
1) Docbook is massive and for the most part it's overkill for the type
of documentation written in these parts.
2) If it is desired to support multiple formats that is fine but the
anakia format has been around a long time and serves it's purpose well
and should remain the primary format.
I spent an inordinate amount of time converting the original text-based
documents to stylebook, then anakia format. It is easy enough to
transform to something else but I don't think that is really going to
buy us anything.
How about writing some documentation first. I have seen many of these
many half-hearted attempts, 4 if remember correctly, and I hope this one
if different. I would recommend working up some content and taking it in
all its forms before trying to change the infrastructure for the sake of
changing the infrastructure. The anakia format, for better for worse, is
the defacto standard in Jakarta and someone will have to do some serious
convincing before I life this -1 as that format as the primary form of
our documentation. If you don't want to use anakia, or maven there are
stylesheets that Craig has made that use the simple <style> task to
transform the docs.
Also there are maven plugins that support simple docbook, plain simple
text RST docs and now plain html with a plugin James Strachan just
wrote.
> It might be wise for us to
> decide on a format and start from there.
>
> If you have any experience with documentation technologies, be sure and
> chime into turbine-dev for the discussion.
You write the documentation in _any_ form (on a napkin even) and I will
volunteer to get it into a format that can be published. The whole
infrastructure does not need to be redone again.
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Linwood [mailto:jeff@greenninja.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 11:41 AM
> > To: Turbine Users List
> > Subject: Turibne Concepts
> >
> >
> > So it looks like my Turbine Concepts article fits into the outline of
> > the user's guide - should we use it as a base, or should I rewrite it as
> > an xdoc and submit it as it stands to the Turbine documentation?
> >
> > jeff
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Turibne Concepts
Posted by Chris K Chew <ch...@fenetics.com>.
Hi Jeff.
It will definitely fit in!
But I suggest you wait a bit...There is talk about going away from xdoc
towards something more robust like docbook. It might be wise for us to
decide on a format and start from there.
If you have any experience with documentation technologies, be sure and
chime into turbine-dev for the discussion.
Thanks,
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Linwood [mailto:jeff@greenninja.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 11:41 AM
> To: Turbine Users List
> Subject: Turibne Concepts
>
>
> So it looks like my Turbine Concepts article fits into the outline of
> the user's guide - should we use it as a base, or should I rewrite it as
> an xdoc and submit it as it stands to the Turbine documentation?
>
> jeff
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org