RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: xml property documentation
David Megginson writes: > > I agree that we need documentation, but no one has stepped forward and > volunteered to write any. I disagree with Norm that all FlightGear > development should stop until that documentation is written -- if we > used that rule, we wouldn't have ATC, 3D cockpits, runway lighting, > and just about everything else interesting that's appeared in > FlightGear over the past couple of years. David that is BS you are completely misrepresenting my position I am not saying stop development I am saying features need documentation as they are written The time to start this paractice is NOW and the properties need to be documented as much as if not more so then the 'C' code as there are fewer tools to automate this FlightGear is no one individual's project but a collective undertaking which requires good communication and documentation is a major part of this. It is the responsibility of the person introducing new features and or change to document said feature or change at least in a minimal way not the job of a post facto document writer because as history shows the documentation will never get written !! regards Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: xml property documentation
Erez Boym writes: > Well, I'm new to FlightGear tweaking, but I find it > strange that to use flight gear (Add objects, add > aircrafts etc.) you have to search the source files, > just to find these xml properties that will enable me > to do that work. You can also examine the tree live in the online property browser -- that's probably the best approach (it's the one I use). I agree that we need documentation, but no one has stepped forward and volunteered to write any. I disagree with Norm that all FlightGear development should stop until that documentation is written -- if we used that rule, we wouldn't have ATC, 3D cockpits, runway lighting, and just about everything else interesting that's appeared in FlightGear over the past couple of years. > In my inexpert eyes it's something we must maintain otherwise we > limit FlightGear usage to code reader experts that can tweak the > source files. Normal users that only want to add things to flight > gear would be left out or bug mailing lists for these properties. If you're volunteering, you're very welcome. I agree that the work is critical, and it's a good way for a non-coder to make a major contribution to the project. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: xml property documentation
I tried adding comments to the preferences.xml file, but they were not rolled into CVS. The problem, and I believe why my edits didn't make CVS, is that commenting each attribute causes diff to believe the entire file has changed. This makes it difficult for those people who have tailored .xml files. I would really like the .xml files to be fully commented (I'm strange that way), but I'm not going to hold my breath. Jonathan Polley On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 08:01 AM, Erez Boym wrote: Hi, Did anyone start to document these properties in another way, or do we have no documentation about these xml properties ? Erez We had a discussion about this subject a few weeks back and came to the conclusion that automatic generation of the property lists probably won't give the desired result. If you insist on using this approach, you can find the xml parser in the simgear/xml directory of SimGear (esp. easyxml.?xx). Erik __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: xml property documentation
Erez Boym wrote: HI, Well, I'm new to FlightGear tweaking, but I find it strange that to use flight gear (Add objects, add aircrafts etc.) you have to search the source files, just to find these xml properties that will enable me to do that work. In my inexpert eyes it's something we must maintain otherwise we limit FlightGear usage to code reader experts that can tweak the source files. Normal users that only want to add things to flight gear would be left out or bug mailing lists for these properties. In the contrary, most properties are defined in XML configuration files. To see what properties are available you can look in the properties browser when running FlightGear. What is missing here is the default layout of all the subsystems. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: xml property documentation
Norman Vine wrote: David Megginson writes: Martin Spott writes: > > As far as I know, no one has started documenting the propperly, mainly > > because they tend to change rather quickly. > > You probably hit the nail ;-) Aside from that, there will probably be a major restructuring when we add multi-vehicle support. Neither of which is a reason *not* to start a master list at least of new and changed items Seriously how much more work would it be to add/change an entry to the master list at the same time as the code was submitted into the CVS IMHO this should be a requirement for any change in the property tree and would help a lot As a wise man once said The long journey starts with the first step Hmm, I was just thinking we have something to start with: You can save the current state of the properties using the File menu. The output will be an XML file containing all the properties available in the curent session! Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: xml property documentation
David Megginson writes: > > Martin Spott writes: > > > > As far as I know, no one has started documenting the propperly, mainly > > > because they tend to change rather quickly. > > > > You probably hit the nail ;-) > > Aside from that, there will probably be a major restructuring when we > add multi-vehicle support. Neither of which is a reason *not* to start a master list at least of new and changed items Seriously how much more work would it be to add/change an entry to the master list at the same time as the code was submitted into the CVS IMHO this should be a requirement for any change in the property tree and would help a lot As a wise man once said The long journey starts with the first step Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: xml property documentation
Martin Spott writes: > > As far as I know, no one has started documenting the propperly, mainly > > because they tend to change rather quickly. > > You probably hit the nail ;-) Aside from that, there will probably be a major restructuring when we add multi-vehicle support. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: xml property documentation
> As far as I know, no one has started documenting the propperly, mainly > because they tend to change rather quickly. You probably hit the nail ;-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: xml property documentation
Erez Boym wrote: Hi, Did anyone start to document these properties in another way, or do we have no documentation about these xml properties ? The documentation is scattered around a bit. Most of it lives in the FlightGear source under FlightGear/docs-mini But FDM speciffic propperties are (more or less) covered by their maintainers (although the FDM's should agree on some of them). As far as I know, no one has started documenting the propperly, mainly because they tend to change rather quickly. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
