+1 for an "advanced"-section. we had something similar at codi, however, splitting the content isn't always that easy.
regards, gerhard 2015-04-08 18:48 GMT+02:00 Rafael Benevides <benevi...@redhat.com>: > Thanks Ron for your perspective and help. > > > I also would like to add some thoughts: > > - Due to the size and nature of DeltaSpike, people will only be able to > know about a feature if it's mentioned on the documentation, that's why > it's very important for DeltaSpike. > > - Anyway, a polluted documentation may also make the documentation hard to > read. > > - My feeling is that some features that have low importance for users and > lacks of proper documentation, should be placed in a kind of "advanced" > section. > > - I agree with your "modus operandi" to fill the gaps on core > documentation. > > > On 4/7/15 19:19, Ron Smeral wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> we discussed this today with Rafael and Gerhard on IRC: it's about time >> we improved the state of documentation of DS (core)! There's still a lot of >> gaps to fill, the work progress is tracked here: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/DS-Core+Overview >> (JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-813) >> >> I suggest the following mode of operation: >> - sort the items by importance, then "sort" (just mentally, cwiki doesn't >> seem to allow secondary sort criterion) by the documentation status field >> - choose the most important, least documented item >> - mark the item as "WIP" (grey) in cwiki, so that we don't clash >> - push the change (or PR), then mark as "OK" in cwiki >> - repeat :) >> >> Alternatively, we could split the work by topics. The biggest gaps seem >> to be around >> - exception handling >> - config (DeltaSpikeConfig, TypedConfig, BaseConfigPropertyProducer, ...) >> - JSF >> - CDI extension stuff (immutable bean, bean builder, contextual >> lifecycle, ...) >> - utils (AnnotationUtils, ReflectionUtils, ServiceUtils, ...) >> - JMX support >> >> Thanks for any help! >> >> Regards, >> Ron >> >> >
