Solving FOR-470 and getting rid of xdocs now?

[Ferdinand Soethe <sa...@soethe.net>]

I've started looking into FOR-470.

Looking at the details, I keep wondering if it wouldn't save us much
work to get rid of x-docs and fix FOR-470 in one step.

If we don't I'd change all the wording for raw-files to 'xdocs' now just to
change all of them to 'content' for the next release.

So if getting rid of xdocs means merely changing a setting in forrest.
properties and adding a sentence in the update instructions, perhaps
we could have _this one change_ in the dir structure right away?

If it is more work or somebody has any objections, I'll happily just
fix FOR-470 but otherwise I'd rather get rid of xdocs now.

wdyt

--
Ferdinand Soethe

Re: Solving FOR-470 and getting rid of xdocs now?

[Ferdinand Soethe <ma...@soethe.net>]

I just realized that this will also involve changing the documentation
and plugin sites and that is more than I'm able to do properly before
the .7-release. So I'll withdraw my proposal and just fix FOR-470.

Ferdinand

Re: Solving FOR-470 and getting rid of xdocs now?

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
>>On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:06 +0200, Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> 
> 
>>Looking at the details, I keep wondering if it wouldn't save us much
>>work to get rid of x-docs and fix FOR-470 in one step.
> 
> 
> In order to get rid of x-docs, we need to create the stylesheet for
> xdocs --> xhtml so, I recond that this needs to be done first...


I think (hope) ferdinand was talking about the xdocs directory rather
than the DTD. The Xdocs directory now contains all processes data
regardless of it's format (sxw, html, doc etc.) so the name is misleading.

Changing the internal format to XHTML is much more than just writing a
stylesheet from xdocs -> XHTML. We also need to change all the skins
which currently work with XDoc. The existing pipelines would all have to
change as well, we would need to add the new transformation into it (if
we use this approach). We need to plan this move carefully.

However, I am -1, even on getting rid of the xdocs directory. It is a
big job. We should have all our docs conform to the "correct" way of
doing things, that means changing all the documentation, all the
plugins, site-author, fresh-site etc.

Then there are the names of the propoeries we use in the sitemaps, they
would no longert make sense (project:content.xdocs} vs
{project:content). And we would have to work out how to handle the
situation where we want raw, unprocessed data from files that would
normally be processed, such as html and xml.

Lets not underestimate the work involved with these two tasks.

-1 on even thinking about it before 0.7.

Ross

Re: Solving FOR-470 and getting rid of xdocs now?

[Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@apache.org>]

> On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:06 +0200, Ferdinand Soethe wrote:

>Looking at the details, I keep wondering if it wouldn't save us much
>work to get rid of x-docs and fix FOR-470 in one step.

In order to get rid of x-docs, we need to create the stylesheet for
xdocs --> xhtml so, I recond that this needs to be done first... If it
gets on time, it goes to 0.7 if not, to 0.71 or what ever...  But do not
worry, there is not rush but if you do not like that setup you can
always change these settings on your setup:


#project.content-dir=src/documentation
#project.raw-content-dir=${project.content-dir}/content

Cheers,
cheche

Re: Solving FOR-470 and getting rid of xdocs now?

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>]

On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 12:06 +0200, Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
> I've started looking into FOR-470.
> 
> Looking at the details, I keep wondering if it wouldn't save us much
> work to get rid of x-docs and fix FOR-470 in one step.
> 
> If we don't I'd change all the wording for raw-files to 'xdocs' now just to
> change all of them to 'content' for the next release.
> 
> So if getting rid of xdocs means merely changing a setting in forrest.
> properties and adding a sentence in the update instructions, perhaps
> we could have _this one change_ in the dir structure right away?
> 
> If it is more work or somebody has any objections, I'll happily just
> fix FOR-470 but otherwise I'd rather get rid of xdocs now.
> 
> wdyt

-1

We agreed to wait after 0.7 to get rid of xdocs. 

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)