I propose moving a number of JPOX docs general to JDO onto Apache JDO's sit=
e.=20
To be more specific, we (JPOX) have some docs under
http://www.jpox.org/docs/jdo/jdo_overview.html
some of which need updating (some of the figures are outdated or could be=20
cleaner), but all are based around explaining the JDO spec to users (since=
=20
the average JDO user doesnt go near the spec, but may respond better to=20
pretty flow charts and sample code). They would sit better over on Apache J=
DO=20
IMHO.

Issue 1 : Anyone against this move of content? Any issues, or any of the do=
cs=20
in that section not suitable ?

Issue 2 : by moving these docs over, the Apache JDO site will start to get=
=20
much more content than it currently has, and when this happens it may be=20
necessary to add top-level navigation as well as the current side navigatio=
n,=20
or to add hide/show features to the side navigation. Apache JDO currently=20
uses some "Anakia" (?!) to generate the docs which I know little of (except=
=20
that its Velocity underneath), so why is this used instead of Maven1 "site"=
=20
plugin (which is also Velocity) ? Any objections to using Maven1 "site"?


=2D-=20
Andy =C2=A0(Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In principle, I think it's a good idea to have these docs on the JDO
site. I'll take a closer look at them later.

We were set up with Anakia when we entered Apache. I don't know of any
reason why we shouldn't change if there is a need to. I think I prefer a
multi-level left side bar rather than having both top and side. We will
probably only need the multiple levels for docs, so it might be
confusing to have top navigation across the site. I don't know anything
about maven site, but if it works well for JPOX, that's fine. I'll work
with you on making the transition if others are okay with it.

-- Michelle

Andy Jefferson wrote:
> I propose moving a number of JPOX docs general to JDO onto Apache JDO's si
te.
> To be more specific, we (JPOX) have some docs under
> http://www.jpox.org/docs/jdo/jdo_overview.html
> some of which need updating (some of the figures are outdated or could be
> cleaner), but all are based around explaining the JDO spec to users (since
> the average JDO user doesnt go near the spec, but may respond better to
> pretty flow charts and sample code). They would sit better over on Apache 
JDO
> IMHO.
>
> Issue 1 : Anyone against this move of content? Any issues, or any of the d
ocs
> in that section not suitable ?
>
> Issue 2 : by moving these docs over, the Apache JDO site will start to get
> much more content than it currently has, and when this happens it may be
> necessary to add top-level navigation as well as the current side navigati
on,
> or to add hide/show features to the side navigation. Apache JDO currently
> uses some "Anakia" (?!) to generate the docs which I know little of (excep
t
> that its Velocity underneath), so why is this used instead of Maven1 "site
"
> plugin (which is also Velocity) ? Any objections to using Maven1 "site"?
>
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

+1 on moving these docs

- Chris

On Sep 29, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
> On Sep 29, 2007, at 7:04 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
> 
>
> Good idea.
> 
>
> I agree. 
>
> They need to be reviewed for accuracy. I saw that the JDO vs. JPA
> could use some work. And we could add some details like comparing
> to Hibernate in the Why JDO section. 
>
> When we looked at the site plugin, it had limited ability to change
> the "skin" and navigation features but that might have been because
> we didn't look hard enough.
>
> I have no strong feelings about the tooling we use.
>
> Craig 
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]