Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 15810 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2004 10:45:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Nov 2004 10:45:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 77155 invoked by uid 500); 1 Nov 2004 10:45:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 76984 invoked by uid 500); 1 Nov 2004 10:45:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 76972 invoked by uid 99); 1 Nov 2004 10:45:34 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [212.23.3.142] (HELO rutherford.zen.co.uk) (212.23.3.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:45:34 -0800 Received: from [82.69.78.226] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by rutherford.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1COZgp-0004z8-Pf for dev@forrest.apache.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:45:31 +0000 Message-ID: <418613CA.5020400@apache.org> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:45:30 +0000 From: Ross Gardler User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@forrest.apache.org Subject: Re: A question of architecture? [was] Re: [RT] How to move the skins into a plugin? Plans for leather-dev/corium References: <41852762.5090300@apache.org> <200411010957.31563.sean@inwords.co.za> In-Reply-To: <200411010957.31563.sean@inwords.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-Rutherford-IP: [82.69.78.226] X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sean Wheller wrote: > The definition of what constitutes a plugin is blurred as are many aspects of > the architecture. Development of forrest has been on functionality and > architecture is very flat. > As a Technical Author, I would suggest that the forrest documentation set > include the following information set (information architecture). Some of > this already exists: I am in full agreement that Forrest needs to have better documentation, I'm not in quite as full agreement that the attention to architecture is as flat as it may seem. For developers who have been around for some time, "documentation" is their vague memories of past discussions coupled with the mail list archives. This is a barrier to entry for new, and returning, developers. The problem is made worse by the fact that once one understands "the Forrest architecture" one no longer has any interest in writing documentation. Speaking personally I get paid for software not documents, I am not defending this position, simply acknowledging the problem. Fortunately, all of the developers we have are currently pretty good at writing (at least basic) documents when committing new code, bur there is always lots of room for improvement. We welcome *any* contribution to the documents, they are as valuable to the project as the code itself, even more so if we want to attract new developers and not lose time explaining things over and over on this list. Ross