[Cu-wireless] NG article
dyoung at ojctech.com
Mon Dec 30 19:36:34 CST 2002
Sascha and I would have made updates the easy way if we had known how,
and if we were not in a hurry to update the site. We knew that you had
adopted some sort of app framework, and it was evident in the HTML. But
we did not know how to use the framework, and so we started editing the
HTML files, even though that involved a lot of rote work.
Sascha is going to be making lots of changes to the site really soon
(tomorrow pm, hopefully). As soon as you can describe briefly how to use
the framework, we will use it. Otherwise, we will keep on doing things
the bad old way. We feel pressed to update the site, since people who
read the N-G article will be visiting the Web site.
Just to be clear, here is a short requirements list: I would like to
see a modicum of separation of style and content. I do *not* want for an
arbitrary visitor to be able to make changes, Wiki style, not even changes
"pending approval." If the content is contained in editable flat files
or XML on groogroo, that's quite sufficient: vi or emacs beat editing
from a browser any time. Revision history through CVS is a plus.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:41:23PM -0600, Chase Phillips wrote:
> That article is great press! Per Dave's comment...
> I've not been completely MIA. =) (Although, I have been out of touch with
> Mark and Sascha.) I have been spending a lot of time lately researching
> and trying out various web application frameworks.
> Why is "researching web application frameworks" relevant?
> It is my belief that the principal factor missing from the site is the
> ability to be easily updatable. Even if the site were a simple set of
> XML files stored in CVS, which it is, the person updating the site has
> to have write access to the site's html root directory on
> cuwireless.net / groogroo, a necessarily privileged resource.
> Okay, so Sascha and I agreed a while back that making the site updatable
> would do wonders. Mark felt the same, although he had reservations about
> making that "updatability" site-wide (he suggested a sandbox within the
> current site). I'll allow for the possibility that opinions have changed,
> and now's the time to voice discordant tones.
> That said, I think the wisest choice of where I spend my time is to set up
> a framework for the website that will make updatability a priority.
> Compared to my previous feelings, I care more about getting this factor
> right this time around. Another way to say what I feel is that
> whether design is a discussion which we do or do not have, it is largely
> irrelevant in the arena of current actions. Yet, if it's a discussion we
> do have, it should happen either out of the way or later. That discussion
> pales in comparison to making the site a living thing.
> The floor is open for any comments anyone wants to make, including those
> rejecting my ideas. I don't want to take the site somewhere the group
> doesn't want it to go.
> If we, however, reach a quorum, then I need to know who will be involved
> in setting up/maintaing the site. I assume I'll be the principal person
> setting it up.. so there's one. The goal would be to open up the site so
> dedicated maintainers could exist simultaneously (an active or slash-style
> framework). If there's no dedicated maintainer, that suggests a lot about
> what type of framework needs to be used (a wiki-style framework).
> It is my belief that if I am the only one involved in selecting a
> framework, installing and setting it up (along with the database), it can
> be done in a reasonable amount of time, where reasonable is anywhere from
> one to four weeks. (I will be relying heavily on well-known tech, ranging
> from the data available at tech.indymedia.org to the docs at
> jakarta.apache.org.) Some of the software is more than likely already set
> up on groogroo, which suggests that the conversation I am about to have
> with Zach will be really helpful. =)
> Note: this should not discourage any updates that need to happen to the
> current site in the meantime. The two processes are independent until the
> framework is ready to be put in place. (The switch should be as simple as
> changing the virtual host information on groogroo at the appropriate time.
> If I'm mistaken, Zach has the correct answer.)
> As I said, if I don't hear discordant tones from anyone, I'll assume
> people either agree with me, or I'm the only one that cares. Lack of
> response will lead me to believe working on the framework is a good idea.
> Chase Phillips
> shepard at ameth.org ][ -111--0010-0-1100-101-000-01--10
> http://www.ameth.org/ ][ 00-00-01-10--1-00-01-010111010-0
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, David Young wrote:
> > This means we had better get back to work on the Web site....
> > Dave
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 03:40:12PM -0600, Joe Futrelle wrote:
> > > Kickass article in the NG
> > >
> > > http://www.newsgazette.com/story.cfm?Number=12974
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joe Futrelle
> > > Person
> > --
> > David Young OJC Technologies
> > dyoung at ojctech.com Engineering from the Right Brain
> > Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
David Young OJC Technologies
dyoung at ojctech.com Engineering from the Right Brain
Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
More information about the CU-Wireless