what sub-forums do we want ?

dg78 posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006

Hi,

This new forum is great.
Now it is time to think what sub-forums we want, instead to put all posts in a standard "General discussion".

Thanks Rocky

Cheers,
Dominique

ChrisD replied on Sunday, May 07, 2006

Hi,

As Rocky said when he set us loose on the forum the other day i think we need to be very careful that we don't fragment this site so much that it's impossible to find anything.

We should be VERY sure that we need another top level forum before we all get carried away and fragment the reading matter here into loads of little sub sections that makes it more effort than it is worth.

My vote is for keeping things as they are until we truly need another top level grouping. Wink [;)]

It's not up to me but the search engine on this will be very good and having many different top level groupings makes it bloody hard to read through the recent posts.

But that's only an opinion.

ChrisD Big Smile [:D]

guyroch replied on Sunday, May 07, 2006

There are 2 schools of thoughts here, and I somewhat disagree that we need to think of sub-forums right now. First, I like the fact that we can just go to one forum and read all of the new threads and replies by ascending order, regardless of its sub-topic. I learn a lot by just having a one stop shopping place for all of the threads.

On the other hand, it would be nice for a logical breakdown, but doing it too soon could, and most likely will, make posting more combersome as you'll always ask yourself... humm... under which topic should I post this to better get an answer. Newbies will also have a more difficult time navigating around.

However, if it would be possible to have both a logical breakdown by topics (like you suggested we do this sooner rather than later) AND a combined list of threads regardless of in which topics they are in then I have no objections, but I'm not sure that we can do this with Community Server 2.0

cjherasmus replied on Sunday, May 07, 2006

Hi,

accidentally posted this in reply to the wrong thread but here goes again:

a suggestion maybe... two top level branches, i.e. CSLA 1.5x and CSLA 2.x, since there's a difference between them and it's a hassle to first go through the threads only to find out that it's about a different version of the CSLA.

Idea [I] Casper JH Erasmus

glenntoy replied on Sunday, May 07, 2006

Your right cjherasmus in your suggestion to have csla 1.5x and 2.0. In case this can't be done right away, I would like also to suggest to all users using this forums to be specific on the version of CSLA and .NET Framework when posting a topic in order not to mislead other users.

xal replied on Sunday, May 07, 2006

Well, personally I like having all posts in one place because it's easier to get a quick look at what's going on... But as guyroch says, maybe there's a way of having different top level forums and a separate general view. That'd be nice.

Andrés

Igor replied on Sunday, May 07, 2006

I vote for a flat structure.

Even if having a flat view on multiple sub-forums is possible, I would not create more that two branches (CSLA 1.X and CSLA 2.0). Otherwise I'd prefrer to have everything in one place.

Henrik replied on Monday, May 08, 2006

I concur with the flat approach but with seperate CSLA 1.x and a CSLA 2.x groups.

There will come a lot of questions regarding the new generic base classes in 2.0 and having two seperate groups will prevent at lot of new threads with subject - "CSLA 1.5: ???" and "CSLA 2.0: ???" in the same group. Furthermore it will prevent eventual confusion about which version the questioner is talking about.

Anyway, I think a lot of us has get used to the superb archive search provided by Terrence Spencer for the CSLA 1.x, so if we can just get the same functionality out of the community server, I think that will be a good starting point.

Cheers
Henrik

xal replied on Monday, May 08, 2006

Well, maybe there's a way of making everybody happy. I don't know much about community server... no, sorry: I don't know anything about community server, but maybe some tagging or keywords feature can be implemented...

That way it's easy to create "views" for the ones that want separated content and to keep everything in one thread for the ones that don't.

Andrés

Igor replied on Monday, May 08, 2006

Just a few, rather trivial, remarks:

Having two branches is good for version-specific discussions

However:

Having more than one branch is bad for reading/monitoring
Many discussions are not version-specific
It might happen (IMO it happens often) that the person who starts a thread thinks that the question is version-specific, but it is not

Also:

No rule/discipline will work if it can be broken.

So the “views” should be based on some sort of required attributes, probably, just on groups of branches (sub-forums). Are views possible at all?

DansDreams replied on Monday, May 08, 2006

cmellon:

I vote for the two groups mentioned above, one for 1.5x and one for 2.0.

But even that will cause considerable inappropriate fragmentation as many CSLA concepts and discussions would apply to both. Not saying I like the flat structure either, but as others have said we must be careful.

pelinville replied on Tuesday, May 09, 2006

I vote for at least two topics.

1 General

2 Architecture/Design