This looks very promising. I’m going to read this in batches. Some feedback on ‘The data model’.
repos = configurator.data.repos; projectName = configurator.data.projectName; Shouldn’t these be cast to a String and an Array respectively? Also, I find these lines a bit misleading <js:HTTPService id="commitsService" /> import org.apache.royale.events.Event; Since some of the viewers will be first timers I think it’s important to put code in script blocks. Also, related to the last comment can you make the full source for the example available somewhere? Thanks. From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:50 AM To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Subject: Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation) Hi, I've pushed what I will call a first draft of the main portion of a tutorial for using Royale. See: http://apacheroyaleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/RoyaleDocs_Stagin g/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/_site/create-an-application/application-tuto rial.html Feedback welcome. Looks like it might be more than 10 minutes, but it was an interesting look through what Royale can and can't do. A few things I thought of: -DataGrid in Express should probably default to using percentage column sizes. Then the apps will be "responsive" by default. -If DataGrid could handle plain Array, it would save a few lines in the tutorial. -Should this example look better out of the box? Different borders or something like that? Other than responding to feedback on the tutorial, I am going to fill out the application-structure page then move on to ASDoc. So folks are free to just make changes to the .md files to improve the tutorial. I think that may close out my week. If I can make ASDoc work a little better and the tutorial is "ok" (not necessarily great or perfect), it might be a good time to cut another release early next week. Thoughts? -Alex On 1/26/18, 12:32 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > >On 1/26/18, 11:43 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>I don't think we need to build out the full ToC up front, rather than >>PAYG >>haha. There are tons of pages that I have not yet listed in the Google >>doc, >>and several decisions we have to make. >> >>For example, we have an Express set of controls and MDL and who knows >>what >>else. I presume we need to explain how these various sets of controls >>relate to each other... > >Yes, and it also occurred to me that we need to discuss targets (SWF >output and/or JS output) and how to manage that. And keep in mind that >someday there may be a third or fourth output. > >My 2 cents, >-Alex >> >>On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> Responses in-line. >>> >>> On 1/26/18, 2:48 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >Good morning. >>> > >>> >Least thing first: Does the Apache header absolutely need to be in >>>short >>> >lines with hard line breaks so it takes up so much vertical space in >>>the >>> >file? Please look at test-apache-header.md and see whether the header >>> laid >>> >out on fewer lines and trusting to line wrapping works. >>> >>> I don't know for sure. There is a header scanning tool that we use and >>>I >>> just tried it and it didn't mind your reformatting, so that's good >>>enough >>> for me. >>> > >>> >I am fine with your suggestions about where "Hello, World" should be >>>and >>> >how "Developing an application" might play out. However, this does >>>raise >>> >the question of whether this sort of help-docs structure is going to >>>have >>> >an index or other means to locate concepts like "data binding" if it >>>is >>> >tucked down in a larger set of instructions about applications rather >>>than >>> >being a entry itself. >>> >>> IMO, the 10-minute tutorial won't go into any serious detail about data >>> binding, so "data binding" would have its own section wherever it makes >>> sense and a link to it from the tutorial. >>> > >>> >I think the doc structure is still highly fluid and that we need to >>>either >>> >hold off on the ToC until we are closer to alpha-release of the >>> >documentation, or have a less-bulky ToC document. My rough estimate is >>> >that >>> >we have stubs for less than 10% of the pages we will eventually have. >>> >>> IMO, the toc.json is relatively compact and much easier to change. I'm >>> not sure how to make it any smaller. I could probably sit down and >>>crank >>> out all of the missing stubs in an evening, but is it worth it? I like >>> the fact that entries don't show up until we create a page for them. >>> >>> My 2 cents, >>> -Alex >>> > >>> >On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Andrew, >>> >> >>> >> I took a quick peek at the Adobe doc. I'm not sure "Development >>>Phases" >>> >> should be the first thing under "Create an application", especially >>> >>given >>> >> how the Adobe doc says that some of those sub-topics are not phases. >>> >> Also, I think there is more than one way to develop an application. >>> >> >>> >> My temptation is to leave "Hello, World" as the end of the "Get >>>Started" >>> >> section. Getting "Hello World" to work will prove that you have >>> >>properly >>> >> installed the SDK. Then, I would like to suggest tweaking the >>>"Create >>> >>An >>> >> Application" section to be where we build an app in 10 minutes. I >>>think >>> >> we should start with "Application Structure" I will discuss the MVC >>> >> pattern there as an option. Then the next section would be called >>> >> something like "A (10 Minute) Tutorial" and the sub-topics will be >>>major >>> >> steps towards building an example app. It will take you through >>> >>building >>> >> the UI, network access, maybe data-binding, and it will address >>> >>building, >>> >> debugging, and deploying the example. It will pick up enough of the >>> >> development phase information that I don't think we'll need a >>>separate >>> >> section for it. >>> >> >>> >> I'm shutting down for tonight so I'll see what your thoughts are >>>when I >>> >> get going again. I could also draft my version in a branch if you >>>don't >>> >> want to mess with the develop branch right now. >>> >> >>> >> Thoughts? >>> >> -Alex >>> >> >>> >> >>> >-- >>> >Andrew Wetmore >>> > >>> >>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage >>>>1 >>>>4 >>> . >>> >blogspot.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% >>> 7Cfc7c34f4df27449408cf08 >>> >d564aa6bd1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0% >>> 7C636525605481253150 >>> >&sdata=gbSwjy2OMLy72u6Jna41ySDuPFO0K5tsjEV7ZZLnEo4%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Andrew Wetmore >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14 >>. >>blogspot.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccd4e8ea7ad2844405a790 >>8 >>d564f50ec9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63652592603466017 >>7 >>&sdata=QZrNY2%2BwdrY%2FZ48rnKTpAN79N9g7q%2Bn%2BvmQPsHvrrSc%3D&reserved=0 >
