ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de>
Subject Re: [Discussion] documentation framework for OFBiz
Date Sat, 24 Feb 2018 14:44:36 GMT
I have tried Taher's latest patch and it is working great for me. I used 
Intellij Idea with the Asciidoc Plugin.

Differently from Olivier's observation, the main developer-manual ist 
updated when I make a change in developer-manual.adoc. Both html and pdf 
include the change.

It is not updated when I only change an included document like 
accounting.adoc. I think it would be good to recreate all files if they 
have chnaged or not. If I'm not wrong, both SVN and Git notice if a file 
has not be changed even if it is rewritten so it should be no problem.

I think this is a good starting point, more pints might come up if we 
use it more intensely.



Am 21.02.18 um 14:08 schrieb Olivier Heintz:
> Thank you for the work, Taher
> I have played with it and merge with my tests.
> Currently, I have start from Accounting_Agreement, convert from docbook and update and
> test renderer by both your gradle task and by AsciidocFx html button
> With a lot of include, result html file would be very large and in some case it will
be good to be able to put a link in place
> of include. Currenlty the generateOfbizDocumentation task doesn't generate file for doc
in component even if the adoc file is
> not in the _include directory.
> Just for information: With AsciidocFx (I have understood it use asciidoctor for generate
html file, but I'm not sure)
> it's not necessary to say include file is in _include directory, it read both in the
current directory and in the _include one.
> The generateOfbizDocumentation task doesn't use the same rule, we should say explicitly
it's in the _include directory.
> The main "malfunction" of the generateOfbizDocumentation task is that it not re-generate
the html file if it already exist
> even if the main adoc file was modified. So it's needed to remove it manually before
call generateOfbizDocumentation.
> Thank you for your usage of leveloffset, it's generated by docbook conversion, but now
I understand how it works ;-)
> Olivier
> Le 20/02/2018 à 17:48, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>> Hello documentation team and everyone
>> I have created a slightly modified design of the documentation
>> framework with some sample contents in [1]. I highlight the changes
>> below:
>> - Created a new top-level directory called "docs/asciidoc". The reason
>> is so that we have more than one possible manual.
>> - Created "Apache OFBiz User Manual" in docs/asciidoc/user-manual.adoc
>> - Created "Apache OFBiz Developer Manual" in docs/asciidoc/developer-manual.adoc
>> - Created a sample document in the accounting component to show how
>> documents are linked together.
>> - Used a special directive called "leveloffset" in the include
>> directive. This directive shifts the headers of the included document
>> (H2 becomes H3, and so on) so that sub-sections can be published
>> separately.
>> - Created a task called generateOfbizDocumentation to generate the
>> documentation (both PDF and HTML) for framework + core apps
>> - Created a task called generatePluginDocumentation
>> -PpluginId=whatever to generate the documentation for a single plugin.
>> That's it. It's simple, easy to understand and I think you might like
>> it. Any feedback is welcome, and I'll talk to you soon over Skype.
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9873
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Sharan Foga <sharan@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Taher
>>> I think a documentation team would be a great idea. There are people that have
indicated that they'd like to help out with documentation tasks on the user list so that is
where I'd recruit some people from. As long as people know what they need to do to create
the patches then it will become a funnel process of getting it committed.
>>> We need a plan to consolidate the information sitting in the wiki and getting
it put into the documentation framework (and this work will then significantly clear up the
>>> My availability is pretty bad this week so hope to pick this up again or start
the recruitment campaign next week :-)
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>> On 2018/01/28 10:12:41, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilaments@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Like Michael I think it is also a minor point. The reason I chose this
>>>> structure is because it is the default one for asciidoctor and is flexible
>>>> for the future, so Paul also makes a good point. Any structure is fine by
>>>> me, the real important work is getting the documentation right which is
>>>> very exciting to me.
>>>> I will create a patch soon for a base level structure and publishing
>>>> options for both HTML and PDF. It would be fantastic if we can unify _all_
>>>> of our documentation here including stuff currently in the wiki. This way
>>>> any changes to code are reflected (probably in the same commit) with the
>>>> relevant documentation.
>>>> I think we should start to consider maybe forming a team willing to help.
>>>> This is a big, but extremely important thing to have. If we do this right
>>>> then I think adoption rates would increase and our community would get
>>>> larger.
>>>> On Jan 28, 2018 12:19 PM, "Michael Brohl" <michael.brohl@ecomify.de>
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>> this is only a minor point for me, it just saves one folder/structure level.
>>>> If we want to stay open for other documentation frameworks in the future,
>>>> it might be better to keep the proposed structure.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Michael
>>>> Am 28.01.18 um 02:54 schrieb Paul Foxworthy:
>>>> On 26 January 2018 at 19:53, Michael Brohl <michael.brohl@ecomify.de>
>>>>> with a small modification: I don't think we'll need a two-folder structure
>>>>>> /docs/asciidoc, only /docs should be sufficient, no?
>>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>> We have streamlined the build system in other places by having folders
>>>>> the source language: groovyScripts, minilang, src/main/java .
>>>>> It means Groovy and other build tools can have default rules for what
to do
>>>>> with the contents of a language folder, and allows for the possibility
>>>>> other languages in future if necessary.
>>>>> The extra layer is only a minor nuisance. I think I'd prefer to keep
>>>>> What do you see as the disadvantages?
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Paul Foxworthy

View raw message