discuss: Re: Enterprise Java for Linux
Subject:
Re: ITM: Enterprise Java for Linux
From:
David Merrill ####@####.####
Date:
24 Jan 2002 22:12:02 -0000
Message-Id: <20020124230317.GA1565@lupercalia.net>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:34:50PM -0500, Greg Ferguson wrote:
> Hang on folks...I think we already have a new maintainer. See:
>
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/authors/unmaint.html
>
> Glen, can you please contact that individual (column 4) and see what
> the status is? Terribly sorry about the run-around...
>
> I thought I recognized that doc...the other author (Gary Meyer) had
> contacted me a while ago and Carlos (new maintainer) stepped up to
> ask for ownership.
>
> David, we need to sync-up our "unmaintained" lists (or better yet,
> just keep *one*).
Yes, this needs to be finally resolved. I can think of several possible
solutions. Let's talk pros and cons and longer term goals, and make a
decision.
First, we could move the unmaintained list completely off the "static"
site and redirect it to a live query on the database.
Second, we can download xml from the database and generate unmaint
with xslt, which would be a good approach if we want to move to xslt
for the whole site, but do it bit by bit.
Third, we could download just the list itself from the site in marked
up html, and insert it into the page manually. That's how I'm doing
the LDPWN these days.
Fourth, we could refer people to the latest LDPWN, which will be
reasonably up to date at all times.
I can think of benefits and drawbacks to all of these. They all
accomplish the same goal basically, but in different ways.
One moves more traffic to the database, and starts people looking to
it for canonical information. IMNSHO that is a good thing. I want to
continue to develop the database as a resource for publication and
keeping up with what's going on internally. Nobody else has seemed
terrifically enthused about the database, but then again it has been a
long time in development and only recently started to be used by
people other than me.
Two moves us more towards an XML/XSLT production process for the site,
which is another long term goal I would like to see us pursue. No
interest has been expressed by anyone else about this, though no
dissent has been voiced either.
Three keeps things largely the same as they are now, really, it's just
a regular sync from the database. It can be easily scripted and has
minimal impact.
Four bypasses the whole problem by using a completely different
approach, using the "news" as the source of the data. It's probably
the least satisfactory, because it's the least up to date source. I
think it is a poor approach, but I mentioned it for completeness.
What do the rest of you think?
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're
going to give away for free.
--Paul Maritz, former Microsoft Vice President,
referring to Netscape
