[7/4/2005 5:17 PM] <jaybose> forget it, i am.
[7/4/2005 5:17 PM] <the_mind> what do you mean by recording?
[7/4/2005 5:17 PM] <jaybose> logging
[7/4/2005 5:17 PM] <jaybose> so others can view it lat4er
[7/4/2005 5:18 PM] <the_mind> i thought i can copy and paste it :">
[7/4/2005 5:18 PM] <jaybose> you can do that too
[7/4/2005 5:18 PM] <jaybose> :-)
[7/4/2005 5:18 PM] <jaybose> hey, did you read his page?
[7/4/2005 5:18 PM] <the_mind> sorry to ask: who are you nightfal?
[7/4/2005 5:18 PM] <the_mind> whose page?
[7/4/2005 5:20 PM] <jaybose> Vitor made a page: http://wiki.opensymphony.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4795
[7/4/2005 5:20 PM] <jaybose> that's what we'll be working off of
[7/4/2005 5:20 PM] <jaybose> the main purpose of this meeting is to nail down a TOC
[7/4/2005 5:20 PM] <the_mind> yep... i just wanted to see if anything else comes out
[7/4/2005 5:20 PM] <jaybose> and then get the dev team in general to clear it
[7/4/2005 5:21 PM] <jaybose> dev team really meaning Patrick and Jason
[7/4/2005 5:21 PM] -->| vitor ([email protected]) has joined #webwork
[7/4/2005 5:21 PM] <jaybose> hey Vitor
[7/4/2005 5:21 PM] <jaybose> ready to go?
[7/4/2005 5:22 PM] <the_mind> from my pov yes (... almost falling asleep :-( )
[7/4/2005 5:22 PM] <jaybose> haha
[7/4/2005 5:22 PM] <vitor> Hey. Sorry, I'm struggling with this webchat.
[7/4/2005 5:22 PM] <jaybose> np
[7/4/2005 5:23 PM] -->| vitorsouz ([email protected]) has joined #webwork
[7/4/2005 5:23 PM] <vitorsouz> This is much better. Using vIRC now.
[7/4/2005 5:23 PM] |<-- vitor has left efnet (Remote host closed the connection)
[7/4/2005 5:23 PM] <vitorsouz> Don't know what happened. mIRC couldn't connect. I even got a D-Lined message! ouch!
[7/4/2005 5:23 PM] <jaybose> hmm
[7/4/2005 5:23 PM] <vitorsouz> Sorry for this big mess... Ready to go now.
[7/4/2005 5:24 PM] <jaybose> ok, cool
[7/4/2005 5:24 PM] <jaybose> umm forst off
[7/4/2005 5:24 PM] <jaybose> looking at your page
[7/4/2005 5:24 PM] <jaybose> we want an overview
[7/4/2005 5:24 PM] <vitorsouz>  Ok. Let me open it here too
[7/4/2005 5:25 PM] <vitorsouz> Meaning you want me to explain what I'm thinking?
[7/4/2005 5:25 PM] <jaybose> kind of, what should the overview way about WW?
[7/4/2005 5:25 PM] <jaybose> say*
[7/4/2005 5:26 PM] <jaybose> I noted what WW is, and what it is not
[7/4/2005 5:26 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok.
[7/4/2005 5:26 PM] <jaybose> so that would mean a MVS web framework built on XWork
[7/4/2005 5:26 PM] <jaybose> maybe say waht XWork is brielfy
[7/4/2005 5:26 PM] <jaybose> MVC*
[7/4/2005 5:27 PM] <vitorsouz> Good.
[7/4/2005 5:28 PM] <vitorsouz> I think the overview should briefly describe the software and bring other information that's interesting to people that are thinking of evaluating it.
[7/4/2005 5:28 PM] <jaybose> like?
[7/4/2005 5:28 PM] <the_mind> i think that articles and press and testimonials is a very good way to introduce WW
[7/4/2005 5:28 PM] <vitorsouz> So I placed: what is WebWork (could include what it is not), comparison to Struts and others, something about the community, articles and testimonials.
[7/4/2005 5:29 PM] <jaybose> ok
[7/4/2005 5:29 PM] <the_mind> a comparison to other solution cannot be very detailed so the user may be lost already
[7/4/2005 5:29 PM] <vitorsouz> It should not teach WW to anyone. That's the reference and the tutorial's jobs.
[7/4/2005 5:29 PM] <jaybose> great.
[7/4/2005 5:29 PM] <vitorsouz> themind: I think the reference is for experienced users only.
[7/4/2005 5:29 PM] <vitorsouz> I mean, comparison.
[7/4/2005 5:29 PM] <vitorsouz> The comparison is for experienced users. People that know another framework.
[7/4/2005 5:30 PM] <the_mind> yep but you want this put into the overview
[7/4/2005 5:30 PM] <jaybose> evaluators will find a comparison helpful
[7/4/2005 5:30 PM] <vitorsouz> It's a section of the overview. I don't think the overview is meant for sequential reading.
[7/4/2005 5:30 PM] <the_mind> if i am a new user i would like to read this from an independent way... so pointing to articles
[7/4/2005 5:30 PM] <jaybose> and they will definitely look in the overview.
[7/4/2005 5:31 PM] <vitorsouz> We could call it an "Appendix" of the overview, to stress that it's not essential for the newbie. But I'm not sure this is really needed.
[7/4/2005 5:32 PM] <the_mind> moreover spending time to do a full cycle comparison - when these are already available is no use... just my 2c
[7/4/2005 5:32 PM] <vitorsouz> You're right about that: it should be mostly pointers to other people's evaluations, eg. Matt Raible's.
[7/4/2005 5:32 PM] <jaybose> we already have one
[7/4/2005 5:32 PM] <jaybose> it
[7/4/2005 5:32 PM] <jaybose> it's a matter of placement
[7/4/2005 5:33 PM] <the_mind> excellent vitor
[7/4/2005 5:33 PM] <vitorsouz> That's another thing: the developers already wrote technical differences between WW and Struts.
[7/4/2005 5:33 PM] <vitorsouz> So we would place that there and pointers to other articles.
[7/4/2005 5:33 PM] <the_mind> exactly
[7/4/2005 5:33 PM] <the_mind> or it can be a part of the FAQ
[7/4/2005 5:33 PM] <the_mind> i usually see this comparison included in FAQs
[7/4/2005 5:34 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. Just so I'm not completely lost in the process here. Are we starting from my suggestions? From Jay's suggestions? How is this discussion working?
[7/4/2005 5:34 PM] <the_mind> but this is not important for me (the placement)
[7/4/2005 5:34 PM] <jaybose> I am pulling things from your suggestions
[7/4/2005 5:34 PM] <vitorsouz> Okay.
[7/4/2005 5:34 PM] <the_mind> i was reading this http://wiki.opensymphony.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4795
[7/4/2005 5:35 PM] <the_mind> and commenting around - nothing more :-(
[7/4/2005 5:35 PM] <vitorsouz> That's alright. Sounds good to me. :)
[7/4/2005 5:35 PM] <jaybose> Ok, anymore on Overview, or move on to Project Information?
[7/4/2005 5:35 PM] <vitorsouz> That would be my question, exactly.
[7/4/2005 5:35 PM] <the_mind> from my pov i can move on
[7/4/2005 5:36 PM] <jaybose> ok so Prj Info, what do we want in here?
[7/4/2005 5:36 PM] <vitorsouz> Just to wrap up, then: I'll add "(What WW is not)" to the side of "What is WebWork", just to emphasize.
[7/4/2005 5:36 PM] <the_mind> quite clear and complete imo
[7/4/2005 5:37 PM] <jaybose> ehhh
[7/4/2005 5:37 PM] <jaybose> i'm not for that
[7/4/2005 5:37 PM] <jaybose> anymore
[7/4/2005 5:37 PM] <the_mind> go on
[7/4/2005 5:37 PM] <the_mind> hit it
[7/4/2005 5:37 PM] <jaybose> let the reader figure it out
[7/4/2005 5:37 PM] <vitorsouz> Sorry. I'm lost again.
[7/4/2005 5:37 PM] <vitorsouz> You're not for "What WW is not"?
[7/4/2005 5:38 PM] <jaybose> by saying it's a web based MVC, that should be enough
[7/4/2005 5:38 PM] <jaybose> yeah.
[7/4/2005 5:38 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok.
[7/4/2005 5:38 PM] <the_mind> i would say about WW what is already said
[7/4/2005 5:38 PM] <vitorsouz> I'll add a note saying that.
[7/4/2005 5:38 PM] <the_mind> a MVC based on XWork (a command .... ) and that's it
[7/4/2005 5:39 PM] <jaybose> I'm taking a bunch of notes, i can add them to the page after the meeting
[7/4/2005 5:39 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. That's better than. I won't bother doing it too.
[7/4/2005 5:39 PM] <jaybose> Project Information: ...
[7/4/2005 5:39 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. What would you guys add or remove?
[7/4/2005 5:39 PM] <jaybose> I'd keep.
[7/4/2005 5:40 PM] <the_mind> for me it is perfect... already said it
[7/4/2005 5:40 PM] <jaybose> I assume this is Team members, mailing lists, etc
[7/4/2005 5:40 PM] <vitorsouz> Mailing lists is included in "WebWork Community" under Overview.
[7/4/2005 5:40 PM] <the_mind> these are included already in overview
[7/4/2005 5:40 PM] <vitorsouz> Team is not explicit in the Project Information sections. You could add it there later.
[7/4/2005 5:41 PM] <jaybose> so what did you think for that section?
[7/4/2005 5:41 PM] <the_mind> vitor i think it is a good idea to move everything related to ml, team, etc to project information
[7/4/2005 5:41 PM] <vitorsouz> 1. License; 2. Deployment notes; 3. Versions; 4. Dependencies; 5. WebWork Team.
[7/4/2005 5:41 PM] <vitorsouz> Do you think it should be removed from Overview, then?
[7/4/2005 5:41 PM] <the_mind> and leave the Overview as a simple intro to the project
[7/4/2005 5:41 PM] <jaybose> I agree w/ the_mind, all that should leave Overview and go to Prj Info
[7/4/2005 5:41 PM] <the_mind> yes that's it
[7/4/2005 5:41 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. SO the whole "WebWork Community" section would move to P.Info?
[7/4/2005 5:42 PM] <the_mind> oke with me +1
[7/4/2005 5:42 PM] <jaybose> yes
[7/4/2005 5:42 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. I agree too. Then it's License, Deployment notes, Versions, Dependencies, WebWork Team and Community.
[7/4/2005 5:43 PM] <vitorsouz> Not necessarily in this order.
[7/4/2005 5:43 PM] <jaybose> License, Deployment notes, Versions, Dependencies, WebWork Team, Mailing Lists, Forum
[7/4/2005 5:43 PM] <the_mind> License, versions, dependencies, www and community, deployment
[7/4/2005 5:43 PM] <jaybose> When you say community, what does that currently mean?
[7/4/2005 5:43 PM] <the_mind> i see if license is good for me
[7/4/2005 5:44 PM] <the_mind> than i choose the version for which i see dependencies
[7/4/2005 5:44 PM] <the_mind> than i look for community stuff
[7/4/2005 5:44 PM] <the_mind> and if needed i will go to deployment tricks
[7/4/2005 5:44 PM] <vitorsouz> It's item number 3 under Overview: Mailing Lists/Forum, Bug Tracker, Wiki, How to Contribute.
[7/4/2005 5:44 PM] <vitorsouz> The idea now is to move it to Prj. Info
[7/4/2005 5:44 PM] <the_mind> do not forget team members
[7/4/2005 5:45 PM] <jaybose> yep
[7/4/2005 5:45 PM] <the_mind> so let's see the order and move on
[7/4/2005 5:45 PM] <the_mind> :D
[7/4/2005 5:45 PM] <jaybose> ok, so Overview should be very light in comparison to what is it now.
[7/4/2005 5:46 PM] <jaybose> We could hash out the order a little later.
[7/4/2005 5:46 PM] <vitorsouz> Yes. I'm updating the page so we close this issue...
[7/4/2005 5:46 PM] <the_mind> oke
[7/4/2005 5:46 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. Refresh it and check if it's correct now.
[7/4/2005 5:46 PM] <the_mind> i will miss the important part :((
[7/4/2005 5:47 PM] <the_mind> good
[7/4/2005 5:47 PM] <jaybose> Overview looks great
[7/4/2005 5:47 PM] <jaybose> FAQ or more on Prj Info?
[7/4/2005 5:48 PM] <vitorsouz> I think FAQ could have it's own section because we could create subsections, such as "Questions about the project", "Questions on Validators", "Questions on Velocity/Freemarker", etc...
[7/4/2005 5:48 PM] <the_mind> tutorial or cookbook
[7/4/2005 5:48 PM] <vitorsouz> Hmmm... I got it now, Jay
[7/4/2005 5:48 PM] <vitorsouz> Nevermind what I said.
[7/4/2005 5:48 PM] <vitorsouz> I misunderstood your question :)
[7/4/2005 5:48 PM] <jaybose> yes, like Caucho does for Resin
[7/4/2005 5:48 PM] <jaybose> no you did not.
[7/4/2005 5:49 PM] <the_mind> i would let last the faq as passing through the other stuff it will get more clear what should be in the faq
[7/4/2005 5:49 PM] <vitorsouz> I thought you meant putting FAQ under Prj. Info. 
[7/4/2005 5:49 PM] <vitorsouz> Was that what you meant?
[7/4/2005 5:49 PM] <jaybose> haha, no. I agree on your structure idea
[7/4/2005 5:49 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. So are we closed on Overview and Prj. Info?
[7/4/2005 5:49 PM] <jaybose> yep. 
[7/4/2005 5:49 PM] <the_mind> yep
[7/4/2005 5:50 PM] <vitorsouz> All raise your hands. \o_ :P
[7/4/2005 5:50 PM] <vitorsouz> Just kidding. Moving on to FAQ, then.
[7/4/2005 5:50 PM] <the_mind> \^/
[7/4/2005 5:50 PM] <jaybose> :-)
[7/4/2005 5:50 PM] <jaybose> In terms of FAQ content, does WW have one now?
[7/4/2005 5:50 PM] <the_mind> i don't think so
[7/4/2005 5:50 PM] <vitorsouz> Not sure. Let me check.
[7/4/2005 5:50 PM] <the_mind> that's why i would let the faq be the last
[7/4/2005 5:51 PM] <jaybose> http://wiki.opensymphony.com/display/WW/FAQ
[7/4/2005 5:51 PM] <vitorsouz> That's it.
[7/4/2005 5:51 PM] <jaybose> ok, so first off, we need to order this better, and make it into sections.
[7/4/2005 5:51 PM] <vitorsouz> Should we bother creating the FAQ sections now?
[7/4/2005 5:52 PM] <vitorsouz> Maybe we could think about it later.
[7/4/2005 5:52 PM] <jaybose> i agree, we'll tackle later
[7/4/2005 5:52 PM] <jaybose> I say skip Tutorial
[7/4/2005 5:53 PM] <jaybose> that should come based on Patrick's example app
[7/4/2005 5:53 PM] <vitorsouz> I haven't seen Patrick's example app.
[7/4/2005 5:53 PM] <jaybose> neither have I, that's why it should wait.
[7/4/2005 5:53 PM] <the_mind> i have only one comment
[7/4/2005 5:54 PM] <the_mind> i should not provide an example with scriptlets
[7/4/2005 5:54 PM] <the_mind> otherwise in terms of evolution of the tutorial it seems oke to me
[7/4/2005 5:54 PM] <jaybose> scriplets?
[7/4/2005 5:54 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. I'll talk to Patrick, then.
[7/4/2005 5:54 PM] <the_mind> Understanding actions (includes note on displaying data using Scriptlets)
[7/4/2005 5:54 PM] <jaybose> ok
[7/4/2005 5:55 PM] <the_mind> let's wait the example app and than we will fix this one
[7/4/2005 5:55 PM] <jaybose> Moving to Cookbook: what type of docs should go in here?
[7/4/2005 5:55 PM] <the_mind> is Patrick working on it?
[7/4/2005 5:55 PM] <the_mind> or should we?
[7/4/2005 5:55 PM] <jaybose> he is, or is done.
[7/4/2005 5:55 PM] <the_mind> i have noticed something in cvs but not sure yet
[7/4/2005 5:56 PM] <vitorsouz> I'll talk to him. If he likes any of my suggestions on the tutorial, I'll help him develop the example app to conform with the tutorial.
[7/4/2005 5:56 PM] <vitorsouz> And vice-versa.
[7/4/2005 5:56 PM] <jaybose> Ok. So far you have the following for Cookbook:
Tips and tricks on Application Servers (this was in "Overview") 
Accessing application, session and request objects; 
How to format dates and numbers; 
Other stuff from the revised Cookbook... 
[7/4/2005 5:56 PM] <the_mind> yes there is something in cvs
[7/4/2005 5:57 PM] <the_mind> see webwork-example dir
[7/4/2005 5:57 PM] <vitorsouz> Yeah, my suggestions on the Cookbook were detailed in the paragraph and table that follows the bulleted list.
[7/4/2005 5:57 PM] <vitorsouz> I think the lessons in the current cookbook should be revised.
[7/4/2005 5:58 PM] <vitorsouz> Basic ones should be moved to tutorial.
[7/4/2005 5:58 PM] <the_mind> i would include in cookbook: alt syntax
[7/4/2005 5:58 PM] <jaybose> Ok, saw it.
[7/4/2005 5:58 PM] <the_mind> extensive validation
[7/4/2005 5:58 PM] <the_mind> custom interceptors
[7/4/2005 5:58 PM] <jaybose> he's a Q: what should go into the FAQ?
[7/4/2005 5:58 PM] <the_mind> we should extract teh faq from the ML
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <the_mind> browse a little the forum and identify the most asked questions
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <the_mind> that's what i would like to see in a faq
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <jaybose> I see the diff b/w cookbook and tutorial; but what's the diff b/w these and the FAQ?
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <the_mind> shortcuts
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <jaybose> Maybe level of complexity?
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <vitorsouz> Maybe.
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <jaybose> shortcuts?
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <the_mind> the faq should be a shortcut to forum questions
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <the_mind> and to tricky parts
[7/4/2005 5:59 PM] <vitorsouz> A cookbook is more detailed than the FAQ.
[7/4/2005 6:00 PM] <the_mind> absolutely
[7/4/2005 6:00 PM] <the_mind> a cookbook is offering internals
[7/4/2005 6:00 PM] <the_mind> a faq: as the name says: frequently asked questions... this is why i would look in the ML for the FAQ points
[7/4/2005 6:01 PM] <jaybose> Yeah, but we'd enter the Faq questions. They'd be entered after a bunch of ppl as the same question.
[7/4/2005 6:02 PM] <jaybose> ok, I guess the Faq could also point to Cookbook answers
[7/4/2005 6:02 PM] <vitorsouz> I think what Jay is trying to say is: "How do I integrate WW with Spring" is a FAQ. A lot of people ask it.
[7/4/2005 6:02 PM] <the_mind> yes
[7/4/2005 6:02 PM] <vitorsouz> Exactly: link from the FAQ to the cookbook.
[7/4/2005 6:02 PM] <the_mind> how do i pass parameters in xwork.xml
[7/4/2005 6:02 PM] <the_mind> and so on... this can be links to the cookbook or tutorial
[7/4/2005 6:03 PM] <the_mind> these*
[7/4/2005 6:03 PM] <vitorsouz> Alright.
[7/4/2005 6:03 PM] <jaybose> Related Projects: ...
[7/4/2005 6:03 PM] <vitorsouz> So, do we think about what the Cookbook should have now or just leave the suggestion as it is?
[7/4/2005 6:03 PM] <jaybose> (skipping ref for a sec)
[7/4/2005 6:03 PM] <jaybose> the suggestion seems good enough
[7/4/2005 6:04 PM] <jaybose> it's clear what needs to be done
[7/4/2005 6:04 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. Related Projects then.
[7/4/2005 6:04 PM] <jaybose> the person who takes that section will have to figure it out
[7/4/2005 6:04 PM] <the_mind> i think the info in cookbook should include almost everything in the wiki right now that will not be covered in the tutorial
[7/4/2005 6:05 PM] <the_mind> it will be by far the toughest job
[7/4/2005 6:05 PM] <vitorsouz> Certainly.
[7/4/2005 6:05 PM] <the_mind> i don't think one single guy can do it
[7/4/2005 6:05 PM] <vitorsouz> Related Projects include information on other projects, like WebFlow, Plugins, Optional modules, etc.
[7/4/2005 6:05 PM] <jaybose> Vitor has:
WebFlow (graphical chart tool) 
EclipseWork (Eclipse Plugin) 
IDEA Plugin 
WebWork Optional
[7/4/2005 6:05 PM] <the_mind> i think at least 2 should work on it
[7/4/2005 6:05 PM] <the_mind> even in parallel
[7/4/2005 6:05 PM] <jaybose> the_mind: that will probably happen.
[7/4/2005 6:05 PM] <the_mind> why are you orange?
[7/4/2005 6:06 PM] <the_mind> :-/
[7/4/2005 6:06 PM] <vitorsouz> So, anything to add or change in the "Related Projects"?
[7/4/2005 6:06 PM] <jaybose> No, these seem pretty self-explanatory
[7/4/2005 6:07 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. Can we start the discussion about the Reference, then?
[7/4/2005 6:07 PM] <jaybose> yep.
[7/4/2005 6:07 PM] <jaybose> this is what i had:
[7/4/2005 6:07 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. There's your suggestion and there's my comments on it.
[7/4/2005 6:07 PM] <jaybose> What is Webwork - also explain what Webwork is not. 
Architecture 
Getting Started/Deployment Notes 
Configuration 
Interceptors 
Action Chaining 
IOC 
JSP & Velocity Tags - this would be the current tag information, combined with the current "JSP Expression Language Comparison with Webwork 1.x" pages 
Webwork Freemarker Support 
Result Types 
Type Conversion 
Validation 
OGNL 
Internationalization 
Webflow 
3rd Party Integration 
[7/4/2005 6:07 PM] <jaybose> I like Jay Bose's reference TOC (below). On top of it, I'd suggest:

 Remove "What is WebWork" and "Getting Started/Deployment Notes";

 Replace them with "Introduction", in which there would be instructions to read the Overview first and proceed to the tutorial if the reader wants to get started;

 Append "/ Dependency Injection" to "IoC", because some people may know it only by the name "Dependency Injection";

 Group "JSP & Velocity Tags" with "WebWork Freemarker Support" to create a single section that contains everything related to user interface (in subsections);

 "JSP Expression Language Comparison with WebWork 1.x" should be in "Migrating from WebWork 1.x", in the "Project Information" section;

 Add to that same UI topic: JavaScript validation and DWR support (is this in 2.2?);

 WebFlow would be in "Related Projects";

 Have "3rd Party Integration" be links to Cookbook pages that explain how to integrate with SiteMesh, Spring, Pico, Hibernate, JUnit, Quartz, etc.


[7/4/2005 6:07 PM] <the_mind> i must go to sleep now... sorry 2am
[7/4/2005 6:08 PM] <jaybose> goodnight
[7/4/2005 6:08 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok, the_mind: good night. Thanks for your opinions.
[7/4/2005 6:08 PM] <the_mind> jay pls send me the log 
[7/4/2005 6:08 PM] <jaybose> it will be on the forum, i'll send an email
[7/4/2005 6:08 PM] <the_mind> i will comment on it... but as far as can say you are moving pretty well without me
[7/4/2005 6:08 PM] <the_mind> :)
[7/4/2005 6:08 PM] <the_mind> good nite
[7/4/2005 6:08 PM] <vitorsouz> Night
[7/4/2005 6:09 PM] <jaybose> Vitor: give me a minute, i'll give a hybrid of your comments on it
[7/4/2005 6:09 PM] |<-- the_mind has left efnet (http://chat.efnet.org)
[7/4/2005 6:09 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. I will hold.
[7/4/2005 6:10 PM] <vitorsouz> But since I'm not a native english speaker, I don't know what you meant by "give a hybrid of my comments" :)
[7/4/2005 6:14 PM] <jaybose> i am made changes to my suggestions, based on your comments
[7/4/2005 6:15 PM] <jaybose> Introduction - which will have parts of Overview in it, rather than forwarding them to Overview altogether.
Architecture 
Configuration 
Interceptors 
Action Chaining 
IOC / Dependency Injection
UI Components - JSP, Velocity, Freemarker, JavaScript validation and DWR support
Result Types 
Type Conversion 
Validation 
OGNL 
Internationalization 
3rd Party Integration - SiteMesh, Spring, Pico, Hibernate, JUnit, Quartz, etc.
[7/4/2005 6:15 PM] <vitorsouz> Did you update the wiki page?
[7/4/2005 6:15 PM] <jaybose> now, i did not really chg the 3rd party, and i am trying to add parts of Overview to the Intro
[7/4/2005 6:15 PM] <jaybose> not yet
[7/4/2005 6:15 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok, let me take a look at it here then.
[7/4/2005 6:16 PM] <jaybose> the reason for this is i believe the ref should be a doc that ppl could print on it's own and pass around the office
[7/4/2005 6:16 PM] <jaybose> wiki is great, but not as simple to handle as a complete product doc in PDF manual
[7/4/2005 6:16 PM] <jaybose> similar to Spring and Hibernate
[7/4/2005 6:17 PM] <jaybose> i think WW should move in that direction
[7/4/2005 6:17 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. Agreed.
[7/4/2005 6:17 PM] <vitorsouz> I think the merge is good.
[7/4/2005 6:18 PM] <vitorsouz> About 3rd party info: it would not be links to the cookbook, then?
[7/4/2005 6:18 PM] <jaybose> So there could be links to things within the ref, but it should a standalone document. If a user needs more info on a subject, then they should look to the tutorial or cookbook.
[7/4/2005 6:18 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok.
[7/4/2005 6:18 PM] <jaybose> no, b/c that is something ppl use a lot
[7/4/2005 6:19 PM] <vitorsouz> Should we define, then, that the Reference doesn't link to anyone, people link to the reference?
[7/4/2005 6:19 PM] <jaybose> i know when i was adding Spring to my app, i looked at it's Hibnernate support section constantly
[7/4/2005 6:19 PM] <jaybose> hmm, maybe
[7/4/2005 6:19 PM] <vitorsouz> So if "Spring integration in WebWork" is a FAQ and a Cookbook, they all link to the reference, which will be written book-style.
[7/4/2005 6:19 PM] <jaybose> i think the reference could tell ppl where to find more information: cookbook, tutorial
[7/4/2005 6:19 PM] <vitorsouz> If not book-style, hibernate-reference-style.
[7/4/2005 6:19 PM] <jaybose> yes.
[7/4/2005 6:20 PM] <vitorsouz> But would Confluence convert links to other pages to full URLs?
[7/4/2005 6:20 PM] <vitorsouz> When generating PDF?
[7/4/2005 6:21 PM] <vitorsouz> Can we ask Confluence to generate only the Reference as PDF and all of its links to outside be converted?
[7/4/2005 6:21 PM] <jaybose> Why would not want the links to stay as is?
[7/4/2005 6:21 PM] <jaybose> Should the links change?
[7/4/2005 6:21 PM] <vitorsouz> Because if the Cookbook is not generated as PDF to be printed and passed around, we need to change the links to the cookbook to their complete URL.
[7/4/2005 6:22 PM] <vitorsouz> Or am I missing something?
[7/4/2005 6:22 PM] <jaybose> ahhhh
[7/4/2005 6:22 PM] <jaybose> now i understand
[7/4/2005 6:22 PM] <jaybose> so the links are relative now?
[7/4/2005 6:23 PM] <jaybose> or you mean, you only see the name w/ an underline
[7/4/2005 6:23 PM] <vitorsouz> Yes.
[7/4/2005 6:23 PM] <vitorsouz> But not only that.
[7/4/2005 6:23 PM] <vitorsouz> When you link from one page to another in Confluence you just have to write the page's name.
[7/4/2005 6:23 PM] <vitorsouz> For example, the TOC Homework page references my suggestions on syle.
[7/4/2005 6:24 PM] <vitorsouz> Like this: [Click here|Style Guide]
[7/4/2005 6:24 PM] <vitorsouz> Click here is the text that will be underlined.
[7/4/2005 6:24 PM] <vitorsouz> The rest is the name of the page, which serves as URL.
[7/4/2005 6:24 PM] <jaybose> We can't control that, most references do that. If they need to see what a link would lead to, they have to go back to the pdf and click on the link.
[7/4/2005 6:24 PM] <jaybose> we need to ask patrick if we can make the links full url's under the name
[7/4/2005 6:24 PM] <jaybose> i bet not. crap.
[7/4/2005 6:25 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. Also we have to ask him how do we organize the sections in a way that we can choose to generate PDF only for the Reference, not the other pages.
[7/4/2005 6:25 PM] <jaybose> By the way, i hate confluence.
[7/4/2005 6:25 PM] <jaybose> ok, so we'll need to see what he has to say about this.
[7/4/2005 6:25 PM] <vitorsouz> Are you going to cross that phrase from the log before publsihing it? haha :)
[7/4/2005 6:26 PM] <jaybose> haha
[7/4/2005 6:26 PM] <jaybose> maybe i should... :-J
[7/4/2005 6:26 PM] <vitorsouz> ;)
[7/4/2005 6:26 PM] <jaybose> ok, so any other ideas, if we can't convert links?
[7/4/2005 6:26 PM] <jaybose> just in case?
[7/4/2005 6:26 PM] <vitorsouz> Not reference anything.
[7/4/2005 6:27 PM] <vitorsouz> Invesion of Control... Everybody references the Ref, the Ref references no one. :P
[7/4/2005 6:27 PM] <jaybose> hmm, ok. Maybe just reference sections by name.
[7/4/2005 6:27 PM] <jaybose> right.
[7/4/2005 6:27 PM] <vitorsouz> Or that.
[7/4/2005 6:27 PM] <jaybose> haha
[7/4/2005 6:27 PM] <jaybose> ok, i think we've made some progress
[7/4/2005 6:28 PM] <vitorsouz> Definetly.
[7/4/2005 6:28 PM] <jaybose> I'll the notes i made to the bottom of that Page you made
[7/4/2005 6:28 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. Are you doing that now?
[7/4/2005 6:28 PM] <jaybose> and publish this conversation, and then send out a note
[7/4/2005 6:28 PM] <jaybose> yep
[7/4/2005 6:28 PM] <vitorsouz> We could change this "Someone's Suggestions" page to Doc Team Suggestions.
[7/4/2005 6:29 PM] <jaybose> will do
[7/4/2005 6:29 PM] <vitorsouz> Move your Reference section instead of mine and add the other notes.
[7/4/2005 6:29 PM] <jaybose> oh you want me to chg the entire page?
[7/4/2005 6:29 PM] <jaybose> i was going to append
[7/4/2005 6:29 PM] <vitorsouz> Yes.
[7/4/2005 6:30 PM] <vitorsouz> If you want to append I can reorganize it later.
[7/4/2005 6:30 PM] <vitorsouz> Just let me know when you're done.
[7/4/2005 6:30 PM] <vitorsouz> Confluence should have support for simultaneous work! :) haha
[7/4/2005 6:30 PM] <jaybose> :)
[7/4/2005 6:30 PM] <jaybose> agreed
[7/4/2005 6:36 PM] <jaybose> Done. Check it out and update as needed. Thanks for the patience.
[7/4/2005 6:37 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok, checking it now.
[7/4/2005 6:37 PM] <vitorsouz> This new IRC client that I got (VIRC) doesn't notify on channel messages...
[7/4/2005 6:38 PM] <vitorsouz> Ok. I will reorganize the page, if you don't mind. Alright?
[7/4/2005 6:39 PM] <jaybose> Catch you on the forums; see ya.
[7/4/2005 6:39 PM] <jaybose> np.