incubator-easyant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicolas Lalevée <>
Subject Re: The website
Date Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:25:38 GMT

Le 18 févr. 2011 à 16:45, Antoine Levy Lambert a écrit :

> On 2/17/11 2:52 PM, Jean-Louis Boudart wrote:
>> I was also in favor of using Xooki as we already use it for documentation.
>> We already have a xooki plugin for easyant that can handle history a la ivy.
> +1
>> By the way i don't know enough Apache infrastructure to know how we could
>> deal for publication and how to enhance the publication workflow. Reading
>> your description here seems to highlight that Apache CMS would be easier to
>> maintain / use.
> As Nicolas says he can contact Infrastructure and ask them whether a more integrated
workflow around xooki is possible. I will support that. I think infrastructure should support
several source formats for web sites and not make it a constraint to use a particular form
of markup as source code.

Actually I have contacted them to have some input about some possible improvement regarding
the Ant and Ivy website. I din't have any answer though. I guess my question were too vague.

So I tried to look deeper into the cms. I have read (sorry, I don't find the link) that with
some perl glue it should be possible to use other template engine. I'll keep you posted together
with the ant dev team on that topic.


>> Le 17 février 2011 18:49, Nicolas Lalevée<>  a
>> écrit :
>>> As one of the first steps, I think we should setup a web site.
>>> Then comes the question about the tool to use.
>>> I am in favor of using xooki, since the current documentation is also based
>>> on it. We could also imagine using the Apache CMS for the site, and xooki
>>> for the doc.
>>> The pros for the Apache CMS is that it is well supported by the infra team.
>>> It has a build-in notion of staging website: get some preview before going
>>> live; here is the example of the main asf staging site :
>>> Something nice too is that we only need to
>>> edit the templates, the building and committing of the actual html files are
>>> delegated to a buildbot. Last but not least, once build, the doc get onto
>>> the staging or the production websites in few seconds.
>>> Interesting links about the CMS:
>>> The pros for xooki is that is can manage the tree of content of the
>>> site/documentation (see the tree on the left on the Ivy site:
>>> I think this is a important feature. Then
>>> about build and deployment, lots of manual steps. You'll have to build
>>> things locally, and commit them yourself. Then go to and
>>> do a svn up there. And wait few hours to finally get it online.
>>> We use that process for both Ivy and IvyDE website. I'm trying to find a
>>> way to improve this, working a have a quite similar process to the Apache
>>> CMS one. This change is also needed because the infra team is willing to
>>> depreciate for website publishing in favor of the Apache
>>> CMS. But I didn't find a way yet to use xooki within the CMS workflow.
> +1
>>> I'm in favor in choosing xooki, betting that I'll find a way to deal with a
>>> better workflow.
>>> But if I fail the site will have to be migrated to the CMS, which might be
>>> some piece of work.
>>> WDYT ?
>>> Nicolas

View raw message