You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com> on 2007/08/16 22:04:49 UTC
HTTPD Wiki Pages
Good day,
Earlier today whilst reading through some of the infra@ postings I
happened across a mail which was referring to another wiki platform that
the ASF use. CWIKI.
http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
I have had a look at one such wiki site http://cwiki.apache.org/CAYSITE/
and I have to say it looks impressive. Much more inviting and
friendlier than ou current one. From what I have read in the CWIKI
pages the look and feel is much more customisable, the security is more
granular, and the major thing is that the wiki is not directly used, but
rather they are exported to HTML (automatically from what I can see) and
that is what people are sent links to.
I do wonder if we (the HTTPD, and more specifically the docs project)
could use this to greater affect than the MoinMoin one we currently use.
I am sure an XLST file could be created so that they exported versions
could be easily added to the official docs much more easily. As this is
one of the aims of the wiki anyway, this should at least be thought about.
One of the benefits from the infra point of view is that these pages can
be cached far more easily than the MoinMoin ones (though I am not sure
as to the extent, or the reasonings behind this yet).
So what I am suggesting is that we possibly move to this new wiki
platform whilst there is still plenty of impetus to maintain the wiki as
proactively as we currently do.
I am more than willing to do the work to move us over to the new model,
and look at the possible links to the docs export.
Your vote please:
[ ] +
[ ] -
Cheers,
Tony
Re: HTTPD Wiki Pages
Posted by Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com>.
Vincent Bray wrote:
> On 17/08/07, Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com> wrote:
>> Earlier today whilst reading through some of the infra@ postings I
>> happened across a mail which was referring to another wiki platform that
>> the ASF use. CWIKI.
>
> What's this cwiki gubbins? Looks like confluence to me. I've never
> used it as it's rather expensive for non-oss use.
That is exactly what it is.
>
> I not particularly familliar with either wiki's internals, but moin
> appears to use caching of some sort, hence the 'Delete Cache' option
> in the 'More Actions:' select list?
This was something I picked up from an infra@ mail. Though I think it
may no longer be an issue.
>
> Isn't having separate URLs for cached and non-cached pages an
> unnecessary hack? Why can't the wiki delete static pages on update?
What I meant was, users are not directed to the wiki pages as your or I
would edit, they are sent to exported HTML files which would mean faster
access, and better caching. With other options like being usable
(possibly) with a docs build process somehow, so if wiki pages are ever
promoted to the official docs we could have a simple process.
>
> I'm not particularly enamoured with moin, partly because of its wierd
> linking syntax, but don't know enough about either to vote, so, +0.
>
I agree, Moin can be rather painful at times. It's clunky interface,
and as you rightly point out things like it's odd linking syntax all
make me want to look at anything that may be better. Hence my original
idea.
Just wanted to scope opinion that's all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: HTTPD Wiki Pages
Posted by Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com>.
On 17/08/07, Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com> wrote:
> Earlier today whilst reading through some of the infra@ postings I
> happened across a mail which was referring to another wiki platform that
> the ASF use. CWIKI.
What's this cwiki gubbins? Looks like confluence to me. I've never
used it as it's rather expensive for non-oss use.
I not particularly familliar with either wiki's internals, but moin
appears to use caching of some sort, hence the 'Delete Cache' option
in the 'More Actions:' select list?
Isn't having separate URLs for cached and non-cached pages an
unnecessary hack? Why can't the wiki delete static pages on update?
I'm not particularly enamoured with moin, partly because of its wierd
linking syntax, but don't know enough about either to vote, so, +0.
--
noodl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: HTTPD Wiki Pages
Posted by Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com>.
Joshua Slive wrote:
> On 8/16/07, Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com> wrote:
>> Good day,
>>
>> Earlier today whilst reading through some of the infra@ postings I
>> happened across a mail which was referring to another wiki platform that
>> the ASF use. CWIKI.
>
> I have no particular attachment to moinmoin (or wikis in general), but
> a few notes:
>
> 1. confluence is not open source, which is a big strike against it for
> us (not just on philosophical grounds, but also on practical grounds
> for a tech-oriented non-profit wanting to maintain control of its
> "knowledge resources").
>
> 2. confluence is way more resource hungry and less stable than moinmoin.
>
> 3. Many projects use confluence as a pure content management system to
> generate their project docs. We have another system to generate our
> project docs and use moinmoin as a real wiki to encourage public
> contributions. The extra features of confluence are less attractive in
> this situation. If you are proposing that we use confluence to
> generate our official docs, that is a whole other ball of wax and
> would, I'm sure, involve massive changes in how we do things.
No I was not suggesting we change the docs-build process, not by any
stretch of the imagination. Rather it could possibly have been used to
promote material from the wiki to the docs.
>
> 4. While confluence can export html, moinmoin is fronted by mod_cache,
> making it very light-weight for read-only use.
Fair enough, thus negating my earlier (possibly, now confirmed moot point).
>
> 5. moinmoin is also somewhat customizable. See the spamassassin wiki,
> for example.
Ok, fair point.
>
> I believe it is very premature to call for a vote. I'd first like to
> see some very concrete reason why confluence would be substantially
> better.
>
Ok, maybe vote was not the right word in this case. Comments, perhaps :-)
Ok, so on reflection, maybe confluence is not such a hot idea. I guess
my main driver for this was to find an easy path for docs to be
promoted, and a rather more selfish personal one, I don't care too much
for Moin, the alternative just looked far superior.
I tell you what, lets forget I sent the mail, and I will look for an
alternative method, possibly continue to hack on yango's (from #apache)
attempts at an XLST.
Cheers,
Tony
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: HTTPD Wiki Pages
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On 8/16/07, Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com> wrote:
> Good day,
>
> Earlier today whilst reading through some of the infra@ postings I
> happened across a mail which was referring to another wiki platform that
> the ASF use. CWIKI.
I have no particular attachment to moinmoin (or wikis in general), but
a few notes:
1. confluence is not open source, which is a big strike against it for
us (not just on philosophical grounds, but also on practical grounds
for a tech-oriented non-profit wanting to maintain control of its
"knowledge resources").
2. confluence is way more resource hungry and less stable than moinmoin.
3. Many projects use confluence as a pure content management system to
generate their project docs. We have another system to generate our
project docs and use moinmoin as a real wiki to encourage public
contributions. The extra features of confluence are less attractive in
this situation. If you are proposing that we use confluence to
generate our official docs, that is a whole other ball of wax and
would, I'm sure, involve massive changes in how we do things.
4. While confluence can export html, moinmoin is fronted by mod_cache,
making it very light-weight for read-only use.
5. moinmoin is also somewhat customizable. See the spamassassin wiki,
for example.
I believe it is very premature to call for a vote. I'd first like to
see some very concrete reason why confluence would be substantially
better.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: HTTPD Wiki Pages
Posted by Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com>.
Apologies the Cayenne wiki site is to be found here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/CAY/
--Tony
Tony Stevenson wrote:
> Good day,
>
> Earlier today whilst reading through some of the infra@ postings I
> happened across a mail which was referring to another wiki platform that
> the ASF use. CWIKI.
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/CWIKI/
>
> I have had a look at one such wiki site http://cwiki.apache.org/CAYSITE/
> and I have to say it looks impressive. Much more inviting and
> friendlier than ou current one. From what I have read in the CWIKI
> pages the look and feel is much more customisable, the security is more
> granular, and the major thing is that the wiki is not directly used, but
> rather they are exported to HTML (automatically from what I can see) and
> that is what people are sent links to.
>
> I do wonder if we (the HTTPD, and more specifically the docs project)
> could use this to greater affect than the MoinMoin one we currently use.
>
> I am sure an XLST file could be created so that they exported versions
> could be easily added to the official docs much more easily. As this is
> one of the aims of the wiki anyway, this should at least be thought about.
>
> One of the benefits from the infra point of view is that these pages can
> be cached far more easily than the MoinMoin ones (though I am not sure
> as to the extent, or the reasonings behind this yet).
>
> So what I am suggesting is that we possibly move to this new wiki
> platform whilst there is still plenty of impetus to maintain the wiki as
> proactively as we currently do.
>
> I am more than willing to do the work to move us over to the new model,
> and look at the possible links to the docs export.
>
> Your vote please:
>
> [ ] +
> [ ] -
>
>
> Cheers,
> Tony
>
>