I have not done any work on the ASDocs section. We would be glad of any help we can get to make it more useful. Does it need a color guide at the top to indicate what blue, red, green mean...and then I guess we would have to check that that is implemented consistently.
I cannot see the two images you attached, as the email system is for plain-text messages only. If you can find those issues again and drop them into paste.apache.org, I believe you could share the links in a message. @Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> do you have any thoughts about why the ASDocs might not display on occasion? I have run into that too, and have had to basically refresh the browser window and try mys search again. a On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:59 PM GAbe Barbosa <gbarbosa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm specifically talking about the https://royale.apache.org/asdoc and > I'm using mostly emulation components. This is on the latest chrome browser > on desktop and mobile (android). If there's another browser I should be > using please let me know. Here's the errors I see all the time. Honestly > never checked the console till now, that's on me. > [image: asdoc_royale.PNG] > > [image: asdoc_royale_console.PNG] > From my perspective the docs are what should keep a developer from having > to dig into the source code. One should be able to always trust the docs. > Right now I don't. Here are my assumptions. > Blue properties/methods are implemented > Red properties/methods are NOT implemented > Green properties/methods added specifically for Royale? > > An example: > mx:UIComponent the docs show the public function of > "invalidateParentSizeAndDisplayList()" as blue > which I'm assuming means implemented. When I dig into the source code I > see that this is actually a protected function and a trace indicating this > is not implemented. > > All that to say, I'm very willing to help with documentation and be the > change I wish to see. I guess I'm just stressing the importance of this. > > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:30 AM Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> This is very important feedback. I have never had the docs fail to load, >> so >> could you give more details? On a particular browser? on a particular >> device? >> >> As to content, aside from performance, what would you like to see more of >> in the docs? >> >> Andrew >> >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:27 PM GAbe Barbosa <gbarbosa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > From a new developer perspective the documentation is awful. Half the >> time >> > the docs won't even load and the other half you have to go searching >> > through the source code anyway to see if that method is commented out. I >> > use the flex as3 doc and go straight to the source code now. Not a fun >> way >> > to develop. >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:44 AM Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I agree about the documentation. If, indeed, that is the weak point, I >> > will >> > > see what I can do to improve it over the coming months. First stop >> will >> > be >> > > to ask folks to indicate what additional doc they would like to >> see...ah, >> > > maybe another wiki page for capturing suggestions. >> > > >> > > If 0.98 actually happens in the next couple of months, might we dare >> to >> > > think of 1.0 before the end of the year?? >> > > >> > > a >> > > >> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:36 AM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I agree with this. >> > > > >> > > > I personally think that the strongest reason to not call it “1.0” is >> > gaps >> > > > in documentation. I wish I was better on that front, and we’d be in >> big >> > > > trouble without Andrew… ;) >> > > > >> > > > Harbs >> > > > >> > > > > On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:23 AM, Yishay Weiss < >> yishayj...@hotmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are >> > > ready >> > > > for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a >> > marketing >> > > > decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully) >> > > > feedback to take care of. >> > > > > >> > > > > At least that’s how I think of it. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > From: Andrew Wetmore<mailto:cottag...@gmail.com> >> > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM >> > > > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> >> > > > > Subject: Getting to 1.0 >> > > > > >> > > > > I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have >> timelines, >> > > > since >> > > > > each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them. >> > > > However...do >> > > > > we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0 >> > > > release? >> > > > > What critical elements are lacking? >> > > > > >> > > > > For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to >> attend >> > > to >> > > > > some of them. >> > > > > >> > > > > The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I >> don't >> > > know >> > > > > that that is a blocker to 1.0. >> > > > > >> > > > > Anything else? >> > > > > >> > > > > a >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Andrew Wetmore >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Andrew Wetmore >> > > >> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Andrew Wetmore >> >> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ >> > -- Andrew Wetmore http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
