You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@geronimo.apache.org by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> on 2005/02/09 18:24:30 UTC
Updating the web-site
We suffer from a failure to keep people informed of progress being made
in Geronimo. One thing we obviously do not do often enough is update the
project home page.
I am under the impression that regenerating the site using maven and
reloading it is a serious PITA. I would like to ask if this is the right
approach to building the home page? Are we better served by moving more
to the wiki or by moving the core of the website to static content?
--
Jeremy
Re: Updating the web-site
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>.
On Feb 9, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2005, at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>> We suffer from a failure to keep people informed of progress being
>> made in Geronimo. One thing we obviously do not do often enough is
>> update the project home page.
>>
>> I am under the impression that regenerating the site using maven and
>> reloading it is a serious PITA. I would like to ask if this is the
>> right approach to building the home page? Are we better served by
>> moving more to the wiki or by moving the core of the website to
>> static content?
>
> I'm all for chucking the current practice and just having a static or
> velocity-generated site... simple, fast and easy.
>
> (And would prefer to not use Wiki as main site...)
+1 static or velocity
I don't type fast enough. I made the same comment in response to
Toby's post.
-dain
Re: Updating the web-site
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@4quarters.com>.
On Feb 9, 2005, at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> We suffer from a failure to keep people informed of progress being
> made in Geronimo. One thing we obviously do not do often enough is
> update the project home page.
>
> I am under the impression that regenerating the site using maven and
> reloading it is a serious PITA. I would like to ask if this is the
> right approach to building the home page? Are we better served by
> moving more to the wiki or by moving the core of the website to static
> content?
I'm all for chucking the current practice and just having a static or
velocity-generated site... simple, fast and easy.
(And would prefer to not use Wiki as main site...)
geir
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geir@gluecode.com
Re: Updating the web-site
Posted by "Preston L. Bannister" <pr...@bannister.us>.
FWIW, I would suggest you put up a weblog, and allow anyone working on
Geronimo to post, and post anything they think might be of interest to
folks outside the project. Plus folks can get updated via an RSS feed!
Based on the end results from all the other sites using Maven, it sure
looks like Maven is more trouble than it is worth :).
Heck, why not just use a public weblog site (like, say
http://apache-geronimo.blogspot.com/ ) if setting up a weblog on the
Apache site is too much trouble(?).
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> We suffer from a failure to keep people informed of progress being
> made in Geronimo. One thing we obviously do not do often enough is
> update the project home page.
>
> I am under the impression that regenerating the site using maven and
> reloading it is a serious PITA. I would like to ask if this is the
> right approach to building the home page? Are we better served by
> moving more to the wiki or by moving the core of the website to static
> content?
--
Preston L. Bannister
preston@bannister.us <ma...@bannister.us>
http://bannister.us/preston.bannister/
pbannister on Yahoo Messenger
Phone: 949.588.0872
Re: Mail Archives and EJB3
Posted by David Blevins <db...@gluecode.com>.
On Feb 15, 2005, at 4:36 AM, David J. Green wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I'm new here so hang with me. First, I tried to find some
> information in the mail list archives, and received a Velocity Servlet
> error when I tried to view the messages by subject, and also when I
> tried by thread. Someone might want to look at that, although I know
> you're all busy.
> Second, I assume Geronimo's EJB code is written for the 2.1 spec,
> but was curious about the plan once the 3.0 spec is release. Will
> that be a feature for the future, or will you try to get it up as
> quickly as you can. I'm looking forward to dumping my current
> server program. Keep up the good work.
> -David
>
Hey David,
OpenEJB (Geronimo's EJB provider) will definitely implement EJB 3.0.
It will be another two years minimum before that spec is finalized,
however, so we aren't pushing on that just yet. Certification is our
sole focus at the moment.
Regards,
David
Re: Mail Archives and EJB3
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>.
On Feb 15, 2005, at 4:36 AM, David J. Green wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I'm new here so hang with me. First, I tried to find some
> information in the mail list archives, and received a Velocity Servlet
> error when I tried to view the messages by subject, and also when I
> tried by thread. Someone might want to look at that, although I know
> you're all busy.
Its been broken for a while. :( I think someone on the Apache
infrastructure team is working on it now.
> Second, I assume Geronimo's EJB code is written for the 2.1 spec,
> but was curious about the plan once the 3.0 spec is release. Will
> that be a feature for the future, or will you try to get it up as
> quickly as you can. I'm looking forward to dumping my current
> server program. Keep up the good work.
Geronimo uses the EJB implementation from OpenEJB (openejb.org), and it
is written to the EJB 2.1 specification. As for EJB 3.0, it is not
even at the public draft stage of the JCP process.
(http://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2), so I personally don't expect
to see a final spec for another year or two. Given the extreme
political nature of the EJB 3.0 specification and the huge amount
change in the EJB 3.0 from the 2.1, I expect to see the EJB 3.0
specification to change a lot as the vendors attempt to implement it.
We saw this to a lesser degree when CMP 2.0 was first introduced, and
when the vendors attempted to implement the public draft, found that
the dependent objects part of the specification simply did not work.
Anyway, I personally don't plan on starting on EJB 3.0 until the spec
stabilizes. I plan on working on features that will make the user
experience better, such as providing better error messages to users.
This is an opensource project, so if you or anyone else is interested
in working on EJB 3.0, please contribute.
-dain
--
Dain Sundstrom
Chief Architect
Gluecode Software
310.536.8355, ext. 26
Mail Archives and EJB3
Posted by "David J. Green" <da...@southernwoodwork.com>.
Hello all!
I'm new here so hang with me.
First, I tried to find some information in the mail list archives,
and received a Velocity Servlet error when I tried to view the messages
by subject, and also when I tried by thread. Someone might want to look
at that, although I know you're all busy.
Second, I assume Geronimo's EJB code is written for the 2.1 spec,
but was curious about the plan once the 3.0 spec is release. Will that
be a feature for the future, or will you try to get it up as quickly as
you can.
I'm looking forward to dumping my current server program. Keep up
the good work.
-David
Re: Updating the web-site
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>.
On Feb 11, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Doesn't Apache have a free license to use Confluence?
Getting a license for software is normally not an issue. Normally the
issue is getting infrastructure to agree to run the software.
-dain
Re: Updating the web-site
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
Doesn't Apache have a free license to use Confluence?
Regards,
Alan
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> We suffer from a failure to keep people informed of progress being
> made in Geronimo. One thing we obviously do not do often enough is
> update the project home page.
>
> I am under the impression that regenerating the site using maven and
> reloading it is a serious PITA. I would like to ask if this is the
> right approach to building the home page? Are we better served by
> moving more to the wiki or by moving the core of the website to static
> content?
>
> --
> Jeremy