8:31 a.m.
Hi Folks,
this morning I worked a bit on our wiki and fixed some category names
and so on. Btw I also removed the WS-Addressing and WS-Reliable
Messaging categories since I think they're too low level considering the
way our wiki has been re-organized; we currently have categories like
Development, Samples, WS culture, Start from scratch, etc. that are
meant to support the user approaching our stuff at different levels of
ws-knowledge. I've just seen Richard re-added the WS-Reliable Messaging
category as well as the WS-Policy one, so let's talk about what strategy
we want to follow with this. Do you think added value comes from
technology specific grouping of pages?
Btw I'm also concerned about the CXF, Native and Metro category: I think
the Native category would need to include so many pages that it becomes
actually useless. Having the 3 user guide pages that link to all the
stack specific pages is the right solution imho.
Any thought about this?
Cheers
Alessio
8:52 a.m.
See inlined comments below:
Alessio Soldano wrote:
Hi Folks,
this morning I worked a bit on our wiki and fixed some category names
and so on. Btw I also removed the WS-Addressing and WS-Reliable
Messaging categories since I think they're too low level considering
the way our wiki has been re-organized;
I didn't know this categories
organization in our Wiki. I hear about it
for the first time
we currently have categories like Development, Samples, WS culture,
Start from scratch, etc. that are meant to support the user
approaching our stuff at different levels of ws-knowledge. I've just
seen Richard re-added the WS-Reliable Messaging category as well as
the WS-Policy one, so let's talk about what strategy we want to follow
with this.
I added technology specific categories because I thought I forgot to do
it
Do you think added value comes from technology specific grouping of
pages?
It could be useful but it's not necessary IMHO. If it breaks our
categories policy, we should remove them
Btw I'm also concerned about the CXF, Native and Metro category:
According to our categories policy they are useless
I think the Native category would need to include so many pages that
it becomes actually useless. Having the 3 user guide pages that link
to all the stack specific pages is the right solution imho.
Any thought about this?
Cheers
Alessio
_______________________________________________
jbossws-dev mailing list
jbossws-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossws-dev
--
B.Sc. Richard Opalka
Senior Software Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Mobile: +420 731 186 942
Mail: ropalka(a)redhat.com
2:43 p.m.
Hi Richard,
I added technology specific categories because I thought I forgot to
do it
no problem :-)
> Do you think added value comes from technology specific grouping
of
> pages?
It could be useful but it's not necessary IMHO. If it breaks our
categories policy, we should remove them
> Btw I'm also concerned about the CXF, Native and Metro category:
According to our categories policy they are useless
> I think the Native category would need to include so many pages that
> it becomes actually useless. Having the 3 user guide pages that link
> to all the stack specific pages is the right solution imho.
> Any thought about this?
I/we have actually set no category policy, it's
just a matter of
grouping the pages in a useful way for the user. When we started working
at the wiki we though that way could be to follow the lifecycle of a
(ws) application; that's the reason for the high level category names.
This doesn't mean this has to be the only way of grouping pages (hence
my first email today ;-) )
Cheers
Alessio
6549
days inactive
6549
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Alessio Soldano -
Richard Opalka