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
>

Reply via email to