Broken link on Lucee 5 "docs" page

80 views
Skip to first unread message

Adam Cameron

unread,
Apr 13, 2015, 4:10:06 AM4/13/15
to lu...@googlegroups.com
G'day:
First things first, the JSR-223 link on https://bitbucket.org/lucee/lucee/wiki/Lucee_5 just 404s.

Secondly... you guys seriously need to augment those docs. There is more to doing a beta release than writing code. You also need to promote the release, and facilitate other people promoting it.

As I recommended elsewhere, you need to stop coding and start documenting. At least to a "beta" level of documentation. I know you don't feel like it, but that's irrelevant: you still need to do it.

Cheers.

-- 
Adam

Michael Offner

unread,
Apr 13, 2015, 8:52:21 PM4/13/15
to lu...@googlegroups.com
That has nothing to do about "we" fill about it, we do the best with the limited resources "we" have. You are always welcome to jump in and get part of the "you guys".

Micha
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/e48572d3-def6-424b-88bc-533b4896afd9%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Adam Cameron

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 5:08:35 AM4/14/15
to lu...@googlegroups.com


On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 01:52:21 UTC+1, Michael Offner wrote:
That has nothing to do about "we" fill about it, we do the best with the limited resources "we" have. You are always welcome to jump in and get part of the "you guys".

Please talk me through how you reasonably expect me to help you document new product features that the only way I even know the existence of is by... looking at the very docs I'm asking you to do a half-decent job of? Note I'm not saying you need to furnish the final polished docs, just the bare minimum docs for us to be able to be aware of the features, and perhaps how to test them for you!

Come on mate, throw us a bone here. I'm trying to be part of the "we" but you're making it close to impossible. Like I suggested, you would be doing yerself & Lucee a favour if you got your nose out of BitBucket and the source code for a few days and got the docs in shape so as to make it possible for people to actually work with the beta, and accordingly to help you. Otherwise I gotta ask what the point of the beta actually is?

I'd fix the link to the JSR-223 page if I could find it. I am not that familiar with BitBucket's idea of a wiki, and I could not find a list of what all the pages are, and simply sitting there trying to guess what it might be seemed like a fool's errand to me. TBH, I also kinda assume you just hadn't written it yet?


-- 
Adam

Adam Cameron

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 5:44:05 AM4/14/15
to lu...@googlegroups.com


On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 10:08:35 UTC+1, Adam Cameron wrote:

I'd fix the link to the JSR-223 page if I could find it. I am not that familiar with BitBucket's idea of a wiki, and I could not find a list of what all the pages are, and simply sitting there trying to guess what it might be seemed like a fool's errand to me. TBH, I also kinda assume you just hadn't written it yet?

I found the list of all pages: https://bitbucket.org/lucee/lucee/wiki/browse/, and there does indeed seem to not be a page about JSR-223. So back to the question of how you expect - for example - me to write that page? I do not know what you've implemented, hence looking for the docs in the first place! The beta docs need to come from you guys. From there, people like me can fix glitches in said docs (which I do... I look after the typos/grammar etc on your website, remember?), update them when reality conflicts with the docs (although this is difficult as the docs are what we need to base our perceptions of "reality" are), and know what the expectations are before testing things and potentially raising bugs. Or for the keener ppl amongst us, identify what is a bug and perhaps fix it.

But in the first instance, the initial docs need to come from you. And currently - and in my opinion - we need these docs more than we need bugs fixed & other code-oriented shenanigans.

-- 
Adam

AJ Mercer

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 6:03:44 AM4/14/15
to lu...@googlegroups.com
To date, Adam's blog posts are how I am (trying) to keep up with new additions to Lucee 5 - thanks Adam

So I would say he is  contributing best he can already

I think some blog posts from Lucee would be very beneficial. Not just what has been added, but why you would use them and how to use them - with decent code examples

From there people like Adam could do real world example of how they used new Lucee features.

No offence implied to Adam, but the first time you read about a new feature you want it to be precise and correct.

I think Lucee posts would go a long way to promoting Lucee 5; again, no offence implied to Adam, rather than first search results being about errors and issues and lack of documentation 

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--

AJ Mercer

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 6:21:23 AM4/14/15
to lu...@googlegroups.com
Who requested / sponsored new features in Lucee 5

They would be a good candidate for doco


On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, Michael Offner <mic...@rasia.ch> wrote:

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Adam Cameron

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 6:26:19 AM4/14/15
to lu...@googlegroups.com


On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 11:03:44 UTC+1, AJ Mercer wrote:
No offence implied to Adam, but the first time you read about a new feature you want it to be precise and correct.

Absolutely none taken. I'm doing the best I can with the tools provided. What I resent is then getting shit from Micha when I follow his instructions - it doesn't work - and this is somehow supposedly my fault? If I find stuff that doesn't work, that's as important to document as much as stuff that does work. If only because - taking the abstract stuff as an example - other people didn't waste their own time trying it out in 5.0.0.42, because it was broken. It's now fixed, so  - presently - I'll come back to it.

 
I think Lucee posts would go a long way to promoting Lucee 5; again, no offence implied to Adam, rather than first search results being about errors and issues and lack of documentation 

I would love this too.

However if I stop writing stuff about Lucee 5, then the sum total of information out there about Lucee 5 will be... well: pretty much zero.

I'm not, incidentally, setting out to find fault with stuff in Lucee. I am covering the items in the docs in the order they interest me (or they might interest other people), or if I'm short of time then I'll pick something that should be quick to cover. I do not know whether something will work (or has been implemented sensibly, IMO) until after I start writing it up.

On the other hand Lucee could help itself by providing accurate docs and working product, or even advise me what's safe to investigate and what's best left for the time being. However I have gotten fuck-all useful communication from them, other than whinging when my feedback is less than glowing. Sorry for the language (well: no I'm not), but this actually rather irks me, and I find it resoundingly disappointing.

-- 
Adam

Michael Offner

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 10:11:20 AM4/14/15
to lucee
See my comments between the lines

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Adam Cameron <camero...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 01:52:21 UTC+1, Michael Offner wrote:
That has nothing to do about "we" fill about it, we do the best with the limited resources "we" have. You are always welcome to jump in and get part of the "you guys".

Please talk me through how you reasonably expect me to help you document new product features that the only way I even know the existence of is by... looking at the very docs I'm asking you to do a half-decent job of?

you already have a good knowlege of this new features in general and i think you now get the specially the "static" modifier very good as we can see in your blog post about this topic. 
I got a lot of help from Andrew Dixon with the Wiki even he had no deeper knowlege than you have about this topic.
I did my best to at all information into the wiki on a bare minimum about Lucee 5, if you see Gaps in this, you always can ping me, like i have written more than once, but you answered me that this is not your job that this is my job...

There are a lot of TODO still in the Wiki about functonality you are well aware off, 

 
Note I'm not saying you need to furnish the final polished docs, just the bare minimum docs for us to be able to be aware of the features, and perhaps how to test them for you! 

Come on mate, throw us a bone here. I'm trying to be part of the "we" but you're making it close to impossible.

Really! Are you kidding me, ok make a suggestion how you could help with and how im stopping you to do so.
Don't start with you first have to do all the work and i will polish it then ...

 
Like I suggested, you would be doing yerself & Lucee a favour if you got your nose out of BitBucket and the source code for a few days and got the docs in shape so as to make it possible for people to actually work with the beta,

i have spend 2 days only working on the Lucee 5 wiki entries, i have added every Lucee 5 feature including simple code examples.
You simply don't understand that i have limited resources on this and this is not only because i have to work on the Lucee source code, this is because i have also to make some money to survive. 
I would love to spend a other week or 2 only for the wiki, but them we will not have Lucee ready for dev.objective, so i'm very thankful about people jumping in and help out. 
Everybody that is willing to help get's every support from me i can give! 
Don't get me wrong, you give very good input on the projects, i did a lot of fixes the last day thank to your input.
My Problem is not with that, it is how you tread the project, again it is not only my impression that you are hurting the project with your behaviour. I'm very serious about that!
Yeah the wiki entries are not professional,  there is no company behind it and pay the bills for everything.
So it is not helping if you write "you guys have to do every single piece right ...otherwise everything you do sucks", so if you find a problem in the doc ask me, i could explain you that problem in seconds and you could do a decent blog post about the functionality and not one that only shows what is not working.

 
and accordingly to help you. Otherwise I gotta ask what the point of the beta actually is?
my point
 

I'd fix the link to the JSR-223 page if I could find it.
There is still some problems with JSR223 that we have to solve first, so having a doc public yet makes no sense.
Then we only get a other blog post from you showing something that does not work ;-)
As soon we have the first fully working version (what i'm working atm WHEN I FIND THE TIME), Luis Majano will make CommandBox Lucee 5 compatible using JSR223 and he will do the wiki entry.

 
I am not that familiar with BitBucket's idea of a wiki, and I could not find a list of what all the pages are

every Wiki page has a a link in the top left corner named "Lucee" that shows the index, this is default behaviour of t the bitbucket wiki, google could reveal that "secret" to you ;-) and again, ping me ...
 
, and simply sitting there trying to guess what it might be seemed like a fool's errand to me. TBH, I also kinda assume you just hadn't written it yet?
That is exactly right and if you would ask me ...
Why not start to improve the static entry, you can for sure improve that a lot and if you are not sure, ping me
skype:micstriit

 


-- 
Adam

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

Adam Cameron

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 10:33:14 AM4/14/15
to lu...@googlegroups.com


On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 15:11:20 UTC+1, Micha wrote:
See my comments between the lines

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Adam Cameron <camero...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 01:52:21 UTC+1, Michael Offner wrote:
That has nothing to do about "we" fill about it, we do the best with the limited resources "we" have. You are always welcome to jump in and get part of the "you guys".

Please talk me through how you reasonably expect me to help you document new product features that the only way I even know the existence of is by... looking at the very docs I'm asking you to do a half-decent job of?

you already have a good knowlege of this new features in general and i think you now get the specially the "static" modifier very good as we can see in your blog post about this topic. 

I think you need to stop swiveling things round to make it look like you have a point. This specific example is aboutt he missing JSR-223 page, to which your reply was "well people can help out with the docs". Which I said was a bit daft. In response you're now talking about something else.

This is a bit disingenuous.


 
I did my best to at all information into the wiki on a bare minimum about Lucee 5, if you see Gaps in this, you always can ping me, like i have written more than once, but you answered me that this is not your job that this is my job...

Like I have in this precise case. AND LOOK WHERE IT'S BLOODY GOT US!

 
There are a lot of TODO still in the Wiki about functonality you are well aware off, 

 
Note I'm not saying you need to furnish the final polished docs, just the bare minimum docs for us to be able to be aware of the features, and perhaps how to test them for you! 

Come on mate, throw us a bone here. I'm trying to be part of the "we" but you're making it close to impossible.

Really! Are you kidding me, ok make a suggestion how you could help with and how im stopping you to do so.
Don't start with you first have to do all the work and i will polish it then ...

No. Start by saying "oh yeah, Adam: we've not done that page yet. We're actually having some problems with that feature so it's not really ready for testing yet".

And at that point had you said "I've not got time to update the wiki page right now", I quite possibly would have said "yeah no worries mate, I have it open in front of me and I'll add a note".

See? Easy.

And, yes, you've actually told us this now. But it took a bit of coercion, didn't it?!


 
Like I suggested, you would be doing yerself & Lucee a favour if you got your nose out of BitBucket and the source code for a few days and got the docs in shape so as to make it possible for people to actually work with the beta,

i have spend 2 days only working on the Lucee 5 wiki entries, i have added every Lucee 5 feature including simple code examples.
You simply don't understand that i have limited resources on this and this is not only because i have to work on the Lucee source code, this is because i have also to make some money to survive. 

I do understand you are a constrained resource (we get regular reminders). However I do also see you fixing completely inconsequential "bugs" over this period too. So my conclusion is that you're perhaps not focusing where your very limited resources ought be best applied. I could be wrong.

You have clarified a bit now, but this also took quite a while to coerce out of you.


My Problem is not with that, it is how you tread the project, again it is not only my impression that you are hurting the project with your behaviour. I'm very serious about that!

Yes, and I think you (collectively) are hurting it too. I think you're (ie: Micha) doing your best, but there's a bunch of other people in the LAS who... don't really seem to be helping out in areas that they have expertise. And it's not like anyone is seriously asking anyone outside of LAS to pitch in and help in specific areas either. I know you're busy, but there's a degree of "tough shit mate, it all still needs to be done". And I don't mean that in a rude/mean way, it's more driving home the point that you being really busy and having only a finite resource is all well and good, might be true, but it doesn't help the situation.

And whilst you can say other ppl think the same about me, I know a bunch of other people who agree with my position (and there's actually some overlap in that demographic too!)

That said, it's not like we both aren't correct in this regard.

 
Yeah the wiki entries are not professional,  there is no company behind it and pay the bills for everything.

I specifically made a point of saying "I don't mean finished polished docs, I just mean docs fit for a beta release". Stop erecting strawmen by way of justifying yourself. It won't wash with me (you should know this by now).

 
So it is not helping if you write "you guys have to do every single piece right ...otherwise everything you do sucks",

Again, I have not said that. 

 
so if you find a problem in the doc ask me, i could explain you that problem in seconds and you could do a decent blog post about the functionality and not one that only shows what is not working.

As I said: this thread was me doing that. And look how well it went.
 
 
I'd fix the link to the JSR-223 page if I could find it.
There is still some problems with JSR223 that we have to solve first, so having a doc public yet makes no sense.

OK. So why didn't you just say that.

 
Then we only get a other blog post from you showing something that does not work ;-)

You can shove yer passive-aggressive smiley up yer arse mate. Seriously.

You're taking the piss if you think you have legitimate justification for giving me shit simply for writing up my findings, simply because my findings don't suit you.

 

Why not start to improve the static entry, you can for sure improve that a lot and if you are not sure, ping me


I can add it to the list. I need to actually look at the stuff I've not checked at all first.

-- 
Adam

Michael Offner

unread,
Apr 14, 2015, 11:28:55 AM4/14/15
to lucee
between the lines

MIcha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Adam Cameron <camero...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 15:11:20 UTC+1, Micha wrote:
See my comments between the lines

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Adam Cameron <camero...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 01:52:21 UTC+1, Michael Offner wrote:
That has nothing to do about "we" fill about it, we do the best with the limited resources "we" have. You are always welcome to jump in and get part of the "you guys".

Please talk me through how you reasonably expect me to help you document new product features that the only way I even know the existence of is by... looking at the very docs I'm asking you to do a half-decent job of?

you already have a good knowlege of this new features in general and i think you now get the specially the "static" modifier very good as we can see in your blog post about this topic. 

I think you need to stop swiveling things round to make it look like you have a point. This specific example is aboutt he missing JSR-223 page, to which your reply was "well people can help out with the docs". Which I said was a bit daft. In response you're now talking about something else.

This is a bit disingenuous.
maybe i was lost in translation by this, what i tried to say, maybe you cannot help out with jsr223 but there are for sure a lot of entries you can help to improve/extend


 
I did my best to at all information into the wiki on a bare minimum about Lucee 5, if you see Gaps in this, you always can ping me, like i have written more than once, but you answered me that this is not your job that this is my job...

Like I have in this precise case. AND LOOK WHERE IT'S BLOODY GOT US! 

 
There are a lot of TODO still in the Wiki about functonality you are well aware off, 

 
Note I'm not saying you need to furnish the final polished docs, just the bare minimum docs for us to be able to be aware of the features, and perhaps how to test them for you! 

Come on mate, throw us a bone here. I'm trying to be part of the "we" but you're making it close to impossible.

Really! Are you kidding me, ok make a suggestion how you could help with and how im stopping you to do so.
Don't start with you first have to do all the work and i will polish it then ...

No. Start by saying "oh yeah, Adam: we've not done that page yet. We're actually having some problems with that feature so it's not really ready for testing yet".
when you talking about jsr223, right that info was not in the wiki, but you also never asked so how can i answer a question never asked
 

And at that point had you said "I've not got time to update the wiki page right now", I quite possibly would have said "yeah no worries mate, I have it open in front of me and I'll add a note".

See? Easy.

And, yes, you've actually told us this now. But it took a bit of coercion, didn't it?!


 
Like I suggested, you would be doing yerself & Lucee a favour if you got your nose out of BitBucket and the source code for a few days and got the docs in shape so as to make it possible for people to actually work with the beta,

i have spend 2 days only working on the Lucee 5 wiki entries, i have added every Lucee 5 feature including simple code examples.
You simply don't understand that i have limited resources on this and this is not only because i have to work on the Lucee source code, this is because i have also to make some money to survive. 

I do understand you are a constrained resource (we get regular reminders). However I do also see you fixing completely inconsequential "bugs" over this period too. So my conclusion is that you're perhaps not focusing where your very limited resources ought be best applied. I could be wrong.

You are, the tickets i recently solved are thing came up in my tests, things the community raised about Lucee 5, things i had on my to do list and tickets paid by clients to solve it, this includes ALL fixes i recently did for Lucee 4.5!


 

You have clarified a bit now, but this also took quite a while to coerce out of you.


My Problem is not with that, it is how you tread the project, again it is not only my impression that you are hurting the project with your behaviour. I'm very serious about that!

Yes, and I think you (collectively) are hurting it too. I think you're (ie: Micha) doing your best, but there's a bunch of other people in the LAS who... don't really seem to be helping out in areas that they have expertise. And it's not like anyone is seriously asking anyone outside of LAS to pitch in and help in specific areas either. I know you're busy, but there's a degree of "tough shit mate, it all still needs to be done". And I don't mean that in a rude/mean way, it's more driving home the point that you being really busy and having only a finite resource is all well and good, might be true, but it doesn't help the situation.

And whilst you can say other ppl think the same about me, I know a bunch of other people who agree with my position (and there's actually some overlap in that demographic too!) 

That said, it's not like we both aren't correct in this regard.

 
Yeah the wiki entries are not professional,  there is no company behind it and pay the bills for everything.

I specifically made a point of saying "I don't mean finished polished docs, I just mean docs fit for a beta release". Stop erecting strawmen by way of justifying yourself. It won't wash with me (you should know this by now).

tell me what you are missing and i will extend it, what aspects in the doc are not clear to you by now? 

 
So it is not helping if you write "you guys have to do every single piece right ...otherwise everything you do sucks",

Again, I have not said that. 

you made that impression, for example

"This is, so far, very subpar work for what I expect from those who formerly worked on Railo. I'm now going to treat this work as an alpha in my head. And my advice is that it seems too early to really try it out yet. This is a shame for something that is supposed to be released in May, as well as by a team who used to release very solid work."

Do you really think this is helping the project?


 

 
so if you find a problem in the doc ask me, i could explain you that problem in seconds and you could do a decent blog post about the functionality and not one that only shows what is not working.

As I said: this thread was me doing that. And look how well it went.

You are right with that, i'm sorry.
 
 
 
I'd fix the link to the JSR-223 page if I could find it.
There is still some problems with JSR223 that we have to solve first, so having a doc public yet makes no sense.

OK. So why didn't you just say that.
see above
 

 
Then we only get a other blog post from you showing something that does not work ;-)

You can shove yer passive-aggressive smiley up yer arse mate. Seriously.

You're taking the piss if you think you have legitimate justification for giving me shit simply for writing up my findings, simply because my findings don't suit you.

 

Why not start to improve the static entry, you can for sure improve that a lot and if you are not sure, ping me


I can add it to the list. I need to actually look at the stuff I've not checked at all first.

i something is not clear ask me, i can also give you a singelton example i have somewhere lie around ...
 

-- 
Adam

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages