Date
1 - 10 of 10
Improving the JSR 375 website
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 07:17 pm, Will Hopkins wrote:
These are all great ideas, and I'd love to see the web site improve, BUT ... the priority for the next couple of days needs to be fixing RI bugs by Tuesday (the GF RI code freeze). The work I did Friday/Saturday needed to be done, but the reason I did it then was because the project site was referenced by the transparency checklist I submitted for FAB, and I wanted to make sure there was actually something there if someone visited the site while evaluating the FAB submission. I agree with Will. And in fact, we have many things to do between now and JavaOne... including finishing Java EE 8! ;-)
If one want to improve the site, that's more than welcome but may I suggest to stick to the current layout for now?
This layout is not super fancy but it's common to many sites. There are a few things that each site needs to have (e.g. license, contributing.md) and there are various moving parts that we don't really have time to document now.
Some standard links can be configured in https://github.com/javaee/security-spec/blob/gh-pages/_config.yml
I also like the JSON-B landing page so maybe the current landing page should be improved to be more 'to-the-point'? Maybe add a Doc page too?
--David
|
|
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 01:10 am, Werner Keil wrote:
I should be able to get an OCA to PMO soon, but it might take a little while to process.It might indeed take time to process it... as the PMO is not managing OCAs ;-) OCA should be send to oracle-ca_us(at)oracle(dot)com, see http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/community/oca-486395.html --David
|
|
Will,
At least JSON-B also has only a spec repository: https://github.com/javaee/jsonb-spec Everything else is at Eclipse in its case, the API and spec document actually seem in the same repository. So either the API (because that would bring the term into the web address) or spec sounds best. Soteria could have its own page if it was worth the effort. At least under java.net I remember both the spec/API and RI did have two different pages for JSON-P. JSON-B does not seem to use more than the statistics pages by Eclipse. I should be able to get an OCA to PMO soon, but it might take a little while to process. So maybe not so easy to actually merge a PR, but I'll also review them where I can. If the release is out and there's enough time for a site, I am happy to help with that based on my experience with JSON-P which I did almost by myself. Regards, Werner
|
|
Will Hopkins
Hi All,
These are all great ideas, and I'd love to see the web site improve, BUT ... the priority for the next couple of days needs to be fixing RI bugs by Tuesday (the GF RI code freeze). The work I did Friday/Saturday needed to be done, but the reason I did it then was because the project site was referenced by the transparency checklist I submitted for FAB, and I wanted to make sure there was actually something there if someone visited the site while evaluating the FAB submission. I would encourage anyone who wants to help over the next few days to take one of the Soteria issues tagged with "bug" and "tck" and work on it. @ggam and @arjantijms, specifically -- Guillermo has a number of outstanding pull requests. One was just updated with a requested change, and I've merged it. Most of the rest are either waiting for Arjan to review/make a recommendation on, or are waiting for requested changes, I think. I would be good to clean those up, and either get them merged or close them. A few of them are basically refactoring test code, which isn't a bad thing, but short term we need to focus our time/energy on the functional issues/bugs. I would also note Issue #131, which is for bugs in pom.xml. The most egregious of those is that all the test jars (and poms) get deployed along with the RI jars. That means they get published to maven.java.net whenever Soteria is published. We should fix that before the RI is final. (Thinking about it now, there might possibly be a way for me to manually remove them from the set of published artifacts during the release process, but I'll have to test that, and manual processes are error prone.) Regarding the particulars of the web site(s):
Will On 08/06/2017 07:14 AM, Werner Keil
wrote:
Check out what I did for JSR 374 based on that example: -- Will Hopkins | WebLogic Security Architect | +1.781.442.0310 Oracle Application Development 35 Network Drive, Burlington, MA 01803
|
|
reza_rahman <reza_rahman@...>
That website is community-contributed. If needed, I can get in touch with the original author. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Arjan Tijms <arjan.tijms@...> Date: 8/6/17 4:56 AM (GMT-05:00) To: javaee-security-spec@javaee.groups.io Subject: Re: [javaee-security-spec] Improving the JSR 375 website Hi, Nice! :) I was just about to suggest the very same thing ;) The json-b one is a nice example too: http://json-b.net I'd definitely agree with going ahead on this. Kind regards, Arjan Tijms On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@...> wrote:
|
|
Check out what I did for JSR 374 based on that example:
https://javaee.github.io/jsonp/ Since JSON-B and JSON-P deal with a similar domain, I changed very little, also keeping the JSON-style title or color scheme. Check out the sources: https://github.com/javaee/jsonp/tree/gh-pages Since these are sub-projects of an organization, the gh-pages branch has to be used. Kind Regards, Werner
|
|
Hi, As the json-b website is (c) Oracle, I assume Java EE Security can just copy it? Check to be sure of course, but otherwise might be a nice and simple approach to copy that and replace the json-b code samples and names etc with that of Java EE Security? Kind regards, Arjan
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@...> wrote: JSON-B website looks definitely better than the default template, but I think we might need a designer to get that level.
|
|
Guillermo González de Agüero
JSON-B website looks definitely better than the default template, but I think we might need a designer to get that level.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I'll start writing some examples then. Btw, does anybody have the full logo? The one on GitHub seems to be cropped. Regards, Guillermo González de Agüero
El dom., 6 de agosto de 2017 10:56, Arjan Tijms <arjan.tijms@...> escribió:
|
|
Hi, Nice! :) I was just about to suggest the very same thing ;) The json-b one is a nice example too: http://json-b.net I'd definitely agree with going ahead on this. Kind regards, Arjan Tijms
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@...> wrote:
|
|
Guillermo González de Agüero
Hi, I just noticed you Will already did some work on the website [1] yesterday! That's fantastic as I was about to propose doing some work on it now that the spec is basically finalized.Basically, things I'd like to see on the page are: - The spec logo that was available on the original GitHub repository [2] - Some simple examples of the APIs. Not a full documentation, but just a small showcase on how to use the spec. - The old java.net project page contained some documents I'm not sure have been preserved. But any additional material (e.g. presentations, early proposals, etc) should be available. The JMS spec [3] website is the most complete I've seen. I could start working on some of this if you agree.
|
|