royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)
Date Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:21:37 GMT
Yes, good question.  It doesn’t take sense to me to explain how to use
each IDE in the tutorial, so I left it oriented to command-line/NPM which
I think will be how you are set up after following the Get
Started/Download sections.

Maybe GetStarted should have other Get Started With Moonshine, Get Started
with VSCode, Get Started with Flash Builder, and we can also write
separate Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with
Flash Builder sections?

Up to you, really.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

On 1/31/18, 7:41 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com> wrote:

>Andrew,
>
>Great question. Each IDE have different approach. I'm talking about both
>which fully supports Royale Moonshine and VSCode. Moonshine create basic
>folder structure.
>Instruction should refer maybe to both IDEs in case of creation.
>
>There is also Maven way of creating structures for Hello World
>application.
>Everything is here [1]
>
>[1] 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FQuick-Start&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adob
>e.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa407fb2ff08d568c12b99%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf
>4%7C0%7C0%7C636530101227203024&sdata=KnVQ2J02MT1QWgY9QGa8Jrbc%2BlGggynn5Gt
>gp9EuV6A%3D&reserved=0
>
>Thanks, Piotr
>
>
>2018-01-31 16:10 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore <cottage14@gmail.com>:
>
>> 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:
>> > 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheroy
>>aleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40
>>adobe.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa407fb2ff08d568c12b99%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23
>>c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636530101227203024&sdata=Fq1N60QjsvD1GcKQrmkIlAvDaF3PEor
>>HalaPaaNa6nU%3D&reserved=0
>> > 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
>>
>> 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14
>>.blogspot.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa407fb2ff
>>08d568c12b99%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636530101227203
>>024&sdata=MEeyz7seKet116bxyYFxCpY5L1P%2Bo2qaOsxbsO%2BI9aE%3D&reserved=0
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Piotr Zarzycki
>
>Patreon: 
>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa40
>7fb2ff08d568c12b99%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C6365301012
>27203024&sdata=364BHlYBX8IIMIbKcrBMck44yKNyrAi%2BYW%2BLJwDCQcs%3D&reserved
>=0
><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa40
>7fb2ff08d568c12b99%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C6365301012
>27203024&sdata=364BHlYBX8IIMIbKcrBMck44yKNyrAi%2BYW%2BLJwDCQcs%3D&reserved
>=0>*

Mime
View raw message