cayenne-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <>
Subject Re: Site structure redesign
Date Sat, 09 Sep 2006 15:27:19 GMT

On Sep 9, 2006, at 6:46 PM, Borut BolĨina wrote:

> I can live with that, it's just that it discards my idea of two site
> focuses. We can experiment, I think we are all very open minded ;-)

This is where I misunderstood your intent initially. I think I follow  
you now. See my other message on site focus - we need to accommodate  
all those users. How we split it across the site(s) is the question  
to discuss, but there is no question that all those aspects need to  
be addressed in some way.

> Don't you think we can profile the users based on user mailing list  
> postings
> and decide which items are more important?

I used to run webalizer stats from the old objectstyle site. IIRC  
JavaDocs generated lots of hits; same for the user guide. This points  
to the people who are actually working with Cayenne and are looking  
for the reference material. Not sure how useful FAQ is in its present  

> No one wants to write documentation in XML, at least sane people  
> don't. If
> this auto export can make the static site visually professional  
> then maybe
> the static site can only have titles and excerpts with link to wiki  
> entries.

Yep. Content transformation (from Wiki to static) is done using this  
Velocity template that I mentioned before:

Right now it generates Confluence standard look, we can change it to  
anything we want. If the template above turns out to be not flexible  
enough, all Confluence content is accessible via XML-RPC and SOAP  
(both are very easy to use), so we can get the raw content and format  
it to our liking. That's how we produce downloadable user guide.

> Yes, it looks quite ok. Then again  have a look (click through some
> sections) how differently it can be done
> index.htm.

Not very impressed by this powerpointish site, but I agree that we  
need some sort of feature walk-through section. Don't see any  
conflict with having that type of info and the current site.


View raw message