You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to mod_python-dev@quetz.apache.org by "Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy" <gr...@apache.org> on 2006/02/10 22:28:09 UTC
Re: site.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Daniel J. Popowich wrote:
> Could we run mod_python on apache.org's site, like, say, the current
> version? ;-)
We could ask again, but last time the answer was no, and I tend to agree.
But I also understand that we have Solaris servers on which zones can be
created where we could run our own httpd.
But it always comes back to the same point - running a nice website takes
a lot of time and effort (possibly more than it takes to actually develop
mod_python), and until there is someone ready to create and maintain
content and run the site and the code on it, there is no point in going
there.
Grisha
Re: site.
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/10/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
> So we would have our own httpd instance in the zone, right?
infra@ allocates zones to a PMC. So, you'd have to 'share' the server
with the rest of the httpd PMC. But, I'm sure we can work something
out. -- justin
Re: site.
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>We could ask again, but last time the answer was no, and I tend to agree.
>>But I also understand that we have Solaris servers on which zones can be
>>created where we could run our own httpd.
>
>
> httpd.zones.apache.org is available (someone on the httpd PMC will
> have access). The standard *.apache.org setup is to have an almost
> entirely static site that can be easily replicated to our backups
> without the need for dynamic setups. Therefore, dynamic sites or
> examples should run in a zone.
So we would have our own httpd instance in the zone, right?
>
>>But it always comes back to the same point - running a nice website takes
>>a lot of time and effort (possibly more than it takes to actually develop
>>mod_python), and until there is someone ready to create and maintain
>>content and run the site and the code on it, there is no point in going
>>there.
>
>
> I would recommend piggy-backing off httpd.apache.org's site design as
> much as possible for the 'here's the latest release of MP', 'where to
> download MP', 'MP mailing lists', etc, etc. You can have a much more
> complex and 'dogfood example' site off the zone - but that should only
> be in 'support' of the basic materials available off httpd.apache.org.
Emulating the httpd.apache.org design would be my personal preference. I
like the idea of being consistent with our the parent httpd project,
plus it's a nice simple layout.
I'll spend a little time knocking up a test page this weekend.
Jim
Re: site.
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/10/06, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
> We could ask again, but last time the answer was no, and I tend to agree.
> But I also understand that we have Solaris servers on which zones can be
> created where we could run our own httpd.
httpd.zones.apache.org is available (someone on the httpd PMC will
have access). The standard *.apache.org setup is to have an almost
entirely static site that can be easily replicated to our backups
without the need for dynamic setups. Therefore, dynamic sites or
examples should run in a zone.
> But it always comes back to the same point - running a nice website takes
> a lot of time and effort (possibly more than it takes to actually develop
> mod_python), and until there is someone ready to create and maintain
> content and run the site and the code on it, there is no point in going
> there.
I would recommend piggy-backing off httpd.apache.org's site design as
much as possible for the 'here's the latest release of MP', 'where to
download MP', 'MP mailing lists', etc, etc. You can have a much more
complex and 'dogfood example' site off the zone - but that should only
be in 'support' of the basic materials available off httpd.apache.org.
HTH. -- justin
Re: site.
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
>
>>message from Justin Erenkrantz has not shown up on list? Is Justin
>>subscribed? I'll cc his message to the list in a separate email.
>
>
> Moderators (Joe S., Grisha, and Greg) haven't approved my emails yet.
> I've modded through my messages and added my gmail account to the
> allow list.
>
> BTW, want to volunteer to moderate this list?
Sure. Why just yesterday I was saying "I wish I had more spam to read".
Oh wait... no I wasn't. ;) Let me know how I can help anyway.
Jim
Re: site.
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/10/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
> message from Justin Erenkrantz has not shown up on list? Is Justin
> subscribed? I'll cc his message to the list in a separate email.
Moderators (Joe S., Grisha, and Greg) haven't approved my emails yet.
I've modded through my messages and added my gmail account to the
allow list.
BTW, want to volunteer to moderate this list?
http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#mail-moderate
;-) -- justin
Re: site.
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Daniel J. Popowich wrote:
>
>> Could we run mod_python on apache.org's site, like, say, the current
>> version? ;-)
>
>
> We could ask again, but last time the answer was no, and I tend to
> agree.
Also agree.
> But I also understand that we have Solaris servers on which zones
> can be created where we could run our own httpd.
Now *that* would be cool. WRT Apache infrastructure I wonder why the
message from Justin Erenkrantz has not shown up on list? Is Justin
subscribed? I'll cc his message to the list in a separate email.
> But it always comes back to the same point - running a nice website
> takes a lot of time and effort (possibly more than it takes to actually
> develop mod_python), and until there is someone ready to create and
> maintain content and run the site and the code on it, there is no point
> in going there.
I didn't intend to start a big debate on a website redesign. I just want
to make some changes in how the content is currently managed so that we
can get information up in a more timely manner without pushing any work
on to Grisha. I do think the project would be well served by making some
website improvements though, and I'm willing to spend some time to that
end. I'm not too concerned about the amount of time required to maintain
the content. It's not like this is a fast moving project where we need
to update the website on a daily basis. ;)
My inclination is to use a simple layout - top banner + 2 columns. It
may be boring but it makes navigation easy and we avoid the headache of
browser compatibility that comes with complicated layouts, and focus our
time and energy on the content.
Jim
Re: site.
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> I'll see about devoting some time to this in the near future - we need
> to solve the site issue...
I have no problem doing the site maintenance. We just need to make a
decision on the infrastructure. Here are the issues as I see them, with
possible alternative solutions.
1. Content repository
a. In our current repository:
/httpd/mod_python/site/whatever
b. Under the apache /httpd/site repository:
/httpd/site/trunk/lib/mod_python
(This would require mod_python committers getting commit
privileges for /httpd/site).
2. Website
a. http://www.modpython.org
(We'd need a mechanism to update the site from the repository.
This could be as simple as a cron job on modpython.org to grab the
current content from the svn repository once a day).
b. httpd://httpd.apache.org/mod_python
(If we use the /httpd/site repository and build infrastructure,
the website gets updated automatically).
c. Other? Perhaps modpython.apache.org?
3. Site design
a. httpd.apache.org design (and tools)
b. Current modpython.org design
c. All new design.
4. Online html-docs
a. www.modpython.org
b. httpd.apache.org
5. Location of the faq, which is dynamic content and cannot be
accomodated under http://httpd.apache.org.
a. modpython.org
b. other?
6. mod_python@modpython.org mailing list archive
a. modpython.org/pipermail
b. other location?
I'd suggest we leave 4, 5 and 6 as is, since that infrastructure is in
place and works. What we need is a way to keep have website content in
subversion, and a mechanism for updating the host.
Jim
> Grisha
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>> On 2/12/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> As a result of the nudge from Justin I've hacked out a minimum build
>>> system for us to play with, based on the httpd doc infrastructure.
>>>
>>> You can download it from:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/mp-website-build.tgz
>>> Untar and check the README for further instructions.
>>>
>>> The generated output can be found at
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/website-test.
>>
>>
>> I'll gently prod that this would be *really* nice to deploy - even as
>> a placeholder while you add even more content. =) -- justin
>>
>
Re: site.
Posted by "Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy" <gr...@apache.org>.
I'll see about devoting some time to this in the near future - we need to
solve the site issue...
Grisha
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 2/12/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
>> As a result of the nudge from Justin I've hacked out a minimum build
>> system for us to play with, based on the httpd doc infrastructure.
>>
>> You can download it from:
>> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/mp-website-build.tgz
>> Untar and check the README for further instructions.
>>
>> The generated output can be found at
>> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/website-test.
>
> I'll gently prod that this would be *really* nice to deploy - even as
> a placeholder while you add even more content. =) -- justin
>
Re: site.
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/12/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
> As a result of the nudge from Justin I've hacked out a minimum build
> system for us to play with, based on the httpd doc infrastructure.
>
> You can download it from:
> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/mp-website-build.tgz
> Untar and check the README for further instructions.
>
> The generated output can be found at
> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/website-test.
I'll gently prod that this would be *really* nice to deploy - even as
a placeholder while you add even more content. =) -- justin
Re: site.
Posted by Jorey Bump <li...@joreybump.com>.
Jim Gallacher wrote:
> The generated output can be found at
> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/website-test.
>
> The only links that you should really trust are under the "Get Involved"
> meun heading. There is likely all sorts of incorrect or missing content.
> This is only intended as a rough demonstration.
>
> If we decide this is the route we want to take I'll commit the files to
> my svn sandbox and we can get to work on the content.
The mod_python site never bothered me until I saw this. Good work, Jim!
The easy access to JIRA is definitely welcome.
Re: site.
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/12/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
> If we decide this is the route we want to take I'll commit the files to
> my svn sandbox and we can get to work on the content.
Looks good. +1. -- justin
Re: site.
Posted by John McFarlane <jo...@thinkflat.com>.
Yes, I was thinking in fact to use the same xml structure/schema :)
Let me mock up something tomorrow which might provide a better feel for
how an alternate approach might feel... I'll use the same xml files.
I'll report back :)
John M.
____________________
Jim Gallacher wrote:
> John McFarlane wrote:
>
>> I don't at all mean to sound confrontational, but would simple xml + xsl
>> be a bit easier to implement? If we're just going to have a few pages,
>> a simple shell script could loop thru them calling xsltproc. Then
>> again, I'm a fan of using simple tools for simple needs?
>
>
> No, you don't sound confrontational. ;) I don't have any preference for
> the tools we use. For me it's all about making mod_python better. I
> think the idea is to piggy-back on the Apache infrastructure. This could
> be especially relevant if we end up merging our content into the Apache
> website tree. In that case maintaining a consistent look and feel would
> be easier using the pre-existing build environment.
>
> I really haven't done any xml/xsl stuff John. Could content source files
> used by the apache build system be used with xsl style sheets if we
> decide to not use the apache tools?
>
> Jim
Re: site.
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
John McFarlane wrote:
> I don't at all mean to sound confrontational, but would simple xml + xsl
> be a bit easier to implement? If we're just going to have a few pages,
> a simple shell script could loop thru them calling xsltproc. Then
> again, I'm a fan of using simple tools for simple needs?
No, you don't sound confrontational. ;) I don't have any preference for
the tools we use. For me it's all about making mod_python better. I
think the idea is to piggy-back on the Apache infrastructure. This could
be especially relevant if we end up merging our content into the Apache
website tree. In that case maintaining a consistent look and feel would
be easier using the pre-existing build environment.
I really haven't done any xml/xsl stuff John. Could content source files
used by the apache build system be used with xsl style sheets if we
decide to not use the apache tools?
Jim
Re: site.
Posted by John McFarlane <jo...@thinkflat.com>.
I don't at all mean to sound confrontational, but would simple xml + xsl
be a bit easier to implement? If we're just going to have a few pages,
a simple shell script could loop thru them calling xsltproc. Then
again, I'm a fan of using simple tools for simple needs?
Here's an example of documentation that's created in this manner:
http://thinkflat.com/howto/index.html
Just my two cents.
John M.
____________________
Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> No, I was not aware that it is auto-generated, but I'm hardly suprised.
>>> :) The point was mostly to kick off a discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> The point is that you needn't muck with HTML directly and can focus on
>> the content instead. =) -- justin
>>
>
> As a result of the nudge from Justin I've hacked out a minimum build
> system for us to play with, based on the httpd doc infrastructure.
>
> You can download it from:
> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/mp-website-build.tgz
> Untar and check the README for further instructions.
>
> The generated output can be found at
> http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/website-test.
>
> The only links that you should really trust are under the "Get Involved"
> meun heading. There is likely all sorts of incorrect or missing content.
> This is only intended as a rough demonstration.
>
> If we decide this is the route we want to take I'll commit the files to
> my svn sandbox and we can get to work on the content.
>
> Jim
>
>
Re: site.
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
>
>>No, I was not aware that it is auto-generated, but I'm hardly suprised.
>>:) The point was mostly to kick off a discussion.
>
>
> The point is that you needn't muck with HTML directly and can focus on
> the content instead. =) -- justin
>
As a result of the nudge from Justin I've hacked out a minimum build
system for us to play with, based on the httpd doc infrastructure.
You can download it from:
http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/mp-website-build.tgz
Untar and check the README for further instructions.
The generated output can be found at
http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/website-test.
The only links that you should really trust are under the "Get Involved"
meun heading. There is likely all sorts of incorrect or missing content.
This is only intended as a rough demonstration.
If we decide this is the route we want to take I'll commit the files to
my svn sandbox and we can get to work on the content.
Jim
Re: site.
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/11/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
> No, I was not aware that it is auto-generated, but I'm hardly suprised.
> :) The point was mostly to kick off a discussion.
The point is that you needn't muck with HTML directly and can focus on
the content instead. =) -- justin
Re: site.
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 2/11/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
>
>>The underlying html from httdp.apache.org makes heavy use of tables for
>>layout and formating. If we end up using this layout I'd want to rewrite
>>it in css. Tables are just so last century. :)
>
>
> You realize that httpd.apache.org is auto-generated from XML through
> Velocity templates, right? The XML source is here (see the xdocs
> directory):
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/site/trunk/
>
No, I was not aware that it is auto-generated, but I'm hardly suprised.
:) The point was mostly to kick off a discussion.
Thanks,
Jim
Re: site.
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/11/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
> The underlying html from httdp.apache.org makes heavy use of tables for
> layout and formating. If we end up using this layout I'd want to rewrite
> it in css. Tables are just so last century. :)
You realize that httpd.apache.org is auto-generated from XML through
Velocity templates, right? The XML source is here (see the xdocs
directory):
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/site/trunk/
HTH. -- justin
Re: site.
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
John McFarlane wrote:
> I would he happy to help out if my experience would be useful.
>
> http://thinkflat.com/home/portfolio/
>
>
> Lemme know if there's anything I can do :)
>
Sounds good. If we have a few people involved we are more likely to stay
motivated.
I've adapted the httpd.apache.org layout and put it up for people to
take a look.
http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/website-test/
The underlying html from httdp.apache.org makes heavy use of tables for
layout and formating. If we end up using this layout I'd want to rewrite
it in css. Tables are just so last century. :)
Some of the links will be broken (doc/), some will just lead to
placeholder pages (about.html), and some just have content dumped in
without concern for adopting the orignal table formatting scheme
(developers.html).
The mailing list page adheres most closely to the httpd.apache.org
original, but the black sans-serif on blue background makes my head hurt.
Anyway take a look and let's get a discussion going.
Jim
Re: site.
Posted by John McFarlane <jo...@thinkflat.com>.
I would he happy to help out if my experience would be useful.
http://thinkflat.com/home/portfolio/
Lemme know if there's anything I can do :)
John M.
__________________________________
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Daniel J. Popowich wrote:
>
>> Could we run mod_python on apache.org's site, like, say, the current
>> version? ;-)
>
>
> We could ask again, but last time the answer was no, and I tend to
> agree. But I also understand that we have Solaris servers on which zones
> can be created where we could run our own httpd.
>
> But it always comes back to the same point - running a nice website
> takes a lot of time and effort (possibly more than it takes to actually
> develop mod_python), and until there is someone ready to create and
> maintain content and run the site and the code on it, there is no point
> in going there.
>
> Grisha