incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com>
Subject Re: Flex CodeScape ...
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:38:46 GMT
An note to others about documentation;

I would just like to state that for some reason I have a passion for  
documentation, maybe it's that manuals or schematics give way to a  
greater awareness of the underlying machine. In the case of the Flex  
framework I have followed it since it's version in the Flash "pre  
v2components and v2 components" to see where it has ended up now.

Point; This framework is monolithic compared to what a lot of college  
graduates are used coming into the tech world these days. If you want  
to recruit new talent you have to give them some type of comfort  
through understanding your system.

The current state of Flex and it's superficial documentation and  
connections is ridiculous (API docs I am speaking about). Especially  
since skins and states were introduced into the documentation by  
Adobe. The docs and connections were scabbed onto and already outdated  
HTML representation of the classes.

I'm sure there are some designers out there that have seen API docs  
that "speak the frameworks truth and intentions", this is what I am  
aiming for to allow others to see the framework in a simplistic  
connected approach.

This project seriously needs to remove the black majic from it's  
framework and show it's connections. Or else all we will see on this  
dev list is developers that have used it for years and no new talent.

I know if I was just graduating highschool but loved programing, the  
flex framework would be something I would definitely not attempt to  
understand and I would be on my merry way to some other documented and  
understandable framework.

Mike
(sorry for the rant)


Quoting Michael Schmalle <apache@teotigraphix.com>:

> Quoting Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com>:
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps it would be an idea to output UML? Or would this be overkill?
>>
>
>
> Well Roland, spitting out UML would be as easy as knowing what to  
> spit out. :) Is there an UML-XML spec somewhere for existing editors  
> to be able to load? I have used StarUML for years, so I am not to  
> versed on the current state of the programs.
>
> I think this would be the best output though, at the same time it  
> would give a dependency graph as well.
>
>
> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
> http://www.teotigraphix.com
> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>
>

-- 
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com


Mime
View raw message