New wiki articles

[Mads Hartmann]

Hey everyone,

As you may know we're working on creating a new and better wiki on
assembla (https://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/liftweb/a-
L5GeVBGr3RE_eJe5aVNr).

The two newest articles are covering 'Templates and binding' and
'Sitemap'

Templates and binding: https://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/liftweb/Templates_and_Binding
Sitemap: https://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/liftweb/SiteMap

If you have the time to read them it would be cool with some feedback.
Do you think it covers the subject? Anything you think needs
clarification or is left out?

Thanks,
Mads Hartmann

[andreas s.]

Is that then the 3rd incarnation of "the" lift wiki? I think it would be nice
to have tags or such for the articles like: scala version used , lift build
used etc.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Lift" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/New-wiki-articles-tp28234366p28235822.html
Sent from the liftweb mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Ben]

From a Lift newbie's perspective, I'd rather see a Lift version of
http://www.djangobook.com/ than another incomplete wiki filled with
out-of-date articles (targeting the Internet in general here, not Lift
specifically). I'm sure something like that could be generated & kept
up to date fairly easily from the Lift book LaTeX source (or used to
generate the LaTeX source if you wanted to make it the master)...

Current Lift info sources: Lift book ~= Lift group > search engine >
3x wikis ? It doesn't make sense to me to spend extra time updating
separate information silos when that same effort could go towards
making a single repository as comprehensive and accurate as possible.

-
Ben

[Mads Hartmann Jensen]

@andreas
I think that would be a good idea too :)

@ Ben
I don't think that the wiki is that much different from the djangobook if you remove the 'chapter' prefix.

--- Django book
Getting started
The Basics of Dynamic Web Pages
The Django Template System
Interacting with a Database: Models
The Django Administration Site
Form Processing
.... a lof stuff

--- Lift wiki
Getting started (Maven, SBT, Eclipse)
Base framework
Modules
Persistence
Bootstrapping
Templates and Binding
SiteMap
---- a lot of stuff

I acctually think that structured nature of the wiki makes it easilier to find the information that you're looking for. The major difference right now is that the django book is done (though outdated it looks like) and the wiki is far from it. But if we all pitch in it shouldn't take long :)

> Current Lift info sources: Lift book ~= Lift group > search engine >
> 3x wikis ? It doesn't make sense to me to spend extra time updating
> separate information silos when that same effort could go towards
> making a single repository as comprehensive and accurate as possible.

The wiki could be that single repository imho. However the group will always be a nice place to look beacuse that's where people go when they're stuck and I don't think that will change even if we create an epic wiki.

Thanks,
Mads Hartmann

[Jeppe Nejsum Madsen]

Ben <bem...@gmail.com> writes:

> From a Lift newbie's perspective, I'd rather see a Lift version of
> http://www.djangobook.com/ than another incomplete wiki filled with
> out-of-date articles (targeting the Internet in general here, not Lift
> specifically). I'm sure something like that could be generated & kept
> up to date fairly easily from the Lift book LaTeX source (or used to
> generate the LaTeX source if you wanted to make it the master)...

Yes that would be nice.

> Current Lift info sources: Lift book ~= Lift group > search engine >
> 3x wikis ? It doesn't make sense to me to spend extra time updating
> separate information silos when that same effort could go towards
> making a single repository as comprehensive and accurate as possible.

I think the situation with the 3 wikis is unfortunate, but I hope that
we've finally settled on a decent platform (Assembla), we have a wiki
gardener (Heiko) and people are starting to put quality content in
there.

But I also think a wiki is a better place for frequently changing
information. It may be difficult to cover all the functionality in a
coherent fashion if you have a more book-like style.

What's left is to change the links from liftweb.net to actually point to
the new wiki and decommission the old wikis...

/Jeppe

[Timothy Perrett]

I would suggest the downside to writing a book is the shear time it takes to plough through detailed chapters with code and consistency; it takes me about 2 weeks to write a chapter if I work on it everyday... Thus, an incremental wiki style is more fitting for our team setup.

Cheers, Tim

[Lukasz Kuczera]

I would suggest putting down other wikis/liking to new one. It so
confusing. I wasn't even aware of assembas one.

On Apr 14, 9:04 am, Timothy Perrett <timo...@getintheloop.eu> wrote:
> I would suggest the downside to writing a book is the shear time it takes to plough through detailed chapters with code and consistency; it takes me about 2 weeks to write a chapter if I work on it everyday... Thus, an incremental wiki style is more fitting for our team setup.
>
> Cheers, Tim
>
> On 14 Apr 2010, at 08:50, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ben <bem...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> From a Lift newbie's perspective, I'd rather see a Lift version of

> >>http://www.djangobook.com/than another incomplete wiki filled with

[Timothy Perrett]

Yes the old wikis will be decommisionef over time. Paitence good sir :-)

Cheers, Tim

Sent from my iPhone

[Naftoli Gugenheim]

There aren't three wikis. The wiki was moved twice, so it's now in its third location.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Jeppe Nejsum Madsen]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <nafto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There aren't three wikis. The wiki was moved twice, so it's now in its third
> location.

Well, yes there are :-) I wont post the links here as to avoid
confusion but the old liftweb.net is still there, so is the github
one...

The proverbial "someone" should see if there's stuff that needs to
survive there, save it somewhere, and close them down to avoid further
confusion....

/Jeppe

[Naftoli Gugenheim]

Right. But from these words: "It doesn't make sense to me to spend extra time updating

separate information silos when that same effort could go towards

making a single repository as comprehensive and accurate as possible," it seemed to me there was a mistaken impression that all three wikis were being maintained -- that's what I was correcting. :)

--

[Jeppe Nejsum Madsen]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <nafto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right. But from these words: "It doesn't make sense to me to spend extra
> time updating
> separate information silos when that same effort could go towards
> making a single repository as comprehensive and accurate as possible," it
> seemed to me there was a mistaken impression that all three wikis were being
> maintained -- that's what I was correcting. :)

Ahh in that case you're right of course :-)

/Jeppe

[Ben]

That statement came from the strange misconception I had that The
Definitive Guide to Lift is written and maintained by the entire Lift
team. As this clearly isn't the case the statement doesn't really
make sense - the one true wiki is the only information silo to update
(once the others are decommissioned). :)


Also, FWIW when I first started looking at Lift some time ago I
followed a link to a wiki which stated that the information there was
out of date and to check the new wiki. Follow that link, same thing.
Follow the third link to wiki and you arrive at an empty wiki. I know
it's only temporary, but it did leave me wondering at the time how
hard it would be for me to find up to date and relevant
documentation. This is important to me because I like to spend my
time solving new or unique problems, not problems that dozens of
people have already encountered and overcome; good documentation helps
me not waste my time.


@Mads
It wasn't so much the structure of djangobook.com that I liked, rather
that it was relatively comprehensive and easy to access. The
advantage a book format has over a wiki is that there aren't so many
little obscure corners and dead ends to be passed over, ignored,
forgotten or abandoned with something in a book format. There are
obviously many disadvantages to the book format too though... and in
either case important bits of info can be hidden in obscure places.

In any case it sounds like the Assembla wiki will be a splendid thing.

On Apr 16, 5:14 am, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <je...@ingolfs.dk> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Right. But from these words: "It doesn't make sense to me to spend extra
> > time updating
> > separate information silos when that same effort could go towards
> > making a single repository as comprehensive and accurate as possible," it
> > seemed to me there was a mistaken impression that all three wikis were being
> > maintained -- that's what I was correcting. :)
>
> Ahh in that case you're right of course :-)
>
> /Jeppe

[Mads Hartmann Jensen]

Ah, yeah I agree with you there - It's sort of hard to read a wiki cover-to-cover ;)

I will migrate all the articles from the old wikis to the assembla wiki later today so
we can finally abandon the old ones and stop all this confusion :)

Mads

[Timothy Perrett]

Its still easier than writing a book ;-)

Cheers, Tim

On Apr 16, 9:30 am, Mads Hartmann Jensen <mads...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, yeah I agree with you there - It's sort of hard to read a wiki cover-to-cover ;)