Broken link on Lucee 5 "docs" page

G’day:
First things first, the JSR-223
https://bitbucket.org/lucee/lucee/wiki/Lucee_5_JSR223 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

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”.

MichaAm Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :

G’day:
First things first, the JSR-223
https://bitbucket.org/lucee/lucee/wiki/Lucee_5_JSR223 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


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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,‘cvml’,‘lucee%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com’);>.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,‘cvml’,‘lucee@googlegroups.com’);>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/e48572d3-def6-424b-88bc-533b4896afd9%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/e48572d3-def6-424b-88bc-533b4896afd9%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

See my comments between the lines

Micha

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 :wink:
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 :wink: 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
@Michael_OffnerOn Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Adam Cameron <@Adam_Cameron> wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 01:52:21 UTC+1, Michael Offner wrote:


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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/b03ae02a-e105-48bc-87a1-0efddfbbbbc5%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/b03ae02a-e105-48bc-87a1-0efddfbbbbc5%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

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

Who requested / sponsored new features in Lucee 5

They would be a good candidate for docoOn Tuesday, 14 April 2015, Michael Offner <@Michael_Offner1> 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”.

Micha

Am Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :

G’day:
First things first, the JSR-223
https://bitbucket.org/lucee/lucee/wiki/Lucee_5_JSR223 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


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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/e48572d3-def6-424b-88bc-533b4896afd9%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/e48572d3-def6-424b-88bc-533b4896afd9%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,‘cvml’,‘lucee%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com’);>.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,‘cvml’,‘lucee@googlegroups.com’);>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CANAvBWVPEY%3Doc3KWzxum4BuZ1MjRbacrN118px1c5jpfjKOYsw%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CANAvBWVPEY%3Doc3KWzxum4BuZ1MjRbacrN118px1c5jpfjKOYsw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

AJ Mercer
<webonix:net strength=“Industrial” /> http://webonix.net | <webonix:org
community=“Open” /> http://webonix.org
http://twitter.com/webonix

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


Adam

between the lines

MIcha

See my comments between the lines

Micha

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 :wink:

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 …On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Adam Cameron <@Adam_Cameron> wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 15:11:20 UTC+1, Micha wrote:

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:


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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/4ccfc09c-f3e9-4c5f-9797-61850d79e733%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/4ccfc09c-f3e9-4c5f-9797-61850d79e733%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

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

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?On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 01:52:21 UTC+1, Michael Offner wrote:


Adam

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.On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 11:03:44 UTC+1, AJ Mercer wrote:


Adam

See my comments between the lines

Micha

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 :wink:

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.On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 15:11:20 UTC+1, Micha wrote:

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

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 01:52:21 UTC+1, Michael Offner wrote:


Adam