royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)
Date Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:10:04 GMT
Here's one question right away. I read this instruction:

"Let's say you are creating a project called MyFirstRoyaleApp. Create a
MyFirstRoyaleApp folder and in it create a folder named "src" and put your
source code in there.  If you do that, the compiler will put the output in
a "bin" folder"."

However, my experience working with IDEs is that, if they support Royale,
they know to build the standard file structure as soon as I create a new
project, without my having to do it. Is the instruction for people who are
going the command-line route, rather than using an IDE? If so, we should
say so.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Yishay Weiss <yishayjobs@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 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:aharui@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" <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 1/26/18, 11:43 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottage14@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 <aharui@adobe.com.invalid>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Andrew,
> >>>
> >>> Responses in-line.
> >>>
> >>> On 1/26/18, 2:48 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottage14@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 <aharui@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
> >
>
>


-- 
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message