incubator-wadi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: web site resources?
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:53:56 GMT
On 1/3/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> My point is we should follow the maven best practices as do most other
> >>>maven driven sites.    Its not really important enough for me to decide
> >>>one way or the other.  But I will point out that doing it this way
> >>>confuses where changes are made to the site as opposed to its generation
> >>>at the source level.  This will cause a disjoint.
> >>
> >>Why?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Why?  Because I now have HTML that can be edited *as well as* the
> > source.  If someone edits the HTML, and not the source, then the next
> > time the site is generated, the HTML is over written.  This is a
> > complete PITA.
>
> Why would you edit the HTML?   That's like editing the jar.
>
> edit the source material.  render the site.  check in the generated
> artifacts. deploy to website from svn.  simple.
>
> You haven't had a problem with Geronimo's approach, have you?
>
> >
> > IMHO, doing the maven thing is a better way...thats my opinion...no
> > more...no less.  You won't change this.
>
> Thanks for keeping an open mind.
>
> Just as an exercise in helping me understand why your mind is so made
> up, at least tell me why.  You haven't given one technical reason other
> than "others do it".
>
> I've explained the benefits of checking in the artifacts :
>
> 1) it ensures that you know exactly what changes are going "to production"
>
> 2) Others can oversee the same thing - what changes are going "to
> production"
>
> 3)It provides a log of exactly what went to production, when, and by
> whom, with history.
>
>
> Why is it better to *not* check in the artifacts?
>
> >
> > I personally have subscribed to the site generation methodology and I
> > like it.  As for commits and seeing them, its very simple and a lot
> > easier to read a commit based on APT (almost plain text) than it reading
> > the raw HTML, so I cannot agree with you on those points.
>
> Except you aren't publishing the APT.  Just like you don't exceute
> source, you execute binary - hence, you compile the source and test the
> binary.
>
> You are arguing that no testing or QA is needed.  I'm saying that it is.
>
> You still commit the APT anyway, so you can see that.  However, changing
> source material for a site can change more than one output artifact.
> How do you check them if you only read the source?
>
> >
> > Lets do this according to the Apache way and put out a vote to commit
> > the site or just the source.  It should end there.  If everyone wants
> > the site committed, then so be it.
>
> Calling for a vote mid conversation is not "the Apache way", nor is
> appealing to mob rule.
>
> >
> > Is this ok?  Can we agree to disagree on the web site subject based on
> > our personal preferences and let the majority rule?
>
> I'd prefer to hear why it's better to publish blindly to production
> rather than commit the same materials and let others have a chance to
> review.  It doesn't change the tool you are using - it just adds some
> minor steps.
>
> All I'm suggesting is that after generating the material, you do a svn
> commit, ssh to the machine, svn co.  Yes, it's two additional
> [scriptable] steps, but I think that we get a lot out of it.  I don't
> think I've seen seen an argument to what the downside is.

What's really being debated here are personal opinions. No one opinion
is better than the other. I agree that it should be put to a vote
instead of continuing the debate.

I have a very simple analogy that I tend to live by as to why I
personally prefer to only check in the source of a generated website
and that is: In a Java project, class and jar files don't get checked
in so why should the end product of the website be any different? But
I digress as I'm not interested in a debate over the topic. I simply
wanted to offer what I consider to be a reasonable comparison.

Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo (http://geronimo.apache.org/)

Mime
View raw message