You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com> on 2021/04/18 12:42:05 UTC
Getting to 1.0
I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have timelines, since
each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them. However...do
we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0 release?
What critical elements are lacking?
For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to attend to
some of them.
The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I don't know
that that is a blocker to 1.0.
Anything else?
a
--
Andrew Wetmore
RE: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>.
P.S I am now working on 0.9.8. There are issues regarding binary reproducibility which is not a strict requirement for a release (at least not yet), but I think is worth keeping, as it’s largely working. Looking into it with Alex’s help.
When and if we vote for 1.0 I’ll be happy to assist in releasing that.
From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 11:23 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Getting to 1.0
There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are ready for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a marketing decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully) feedback to take care of.
At least that’s how I think of it.
From: Andrew Wetmore<ma...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Getting to 1.0
I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have timelines, since
each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them. However...do
we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0 release?
What critical elements are lacking?
For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to attend to
some of them.
The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I don't know
that that is a blocker to 1.0.
Anything else?
a
--
Andrew Wetmore
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>.
This is very helpful.
a
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:40 PM GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies for posting images. Console dump. url:
>
> https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!mx.controls.advancedDataGridClasses/AdvancedDataGridColumn
>
> Mixed Content: The page at 'https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/' was loaded
> over HTTPS, but requested an insecure stylesheet '
> http://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.7.0/css/font-awesome.min.css
> '.
> This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.
> ASDoc.js:94 Mixed Content: The page at 'https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/'
> was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure element '
>
> http://royale.codeoscopic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/page-bg-1-1920x300.png
> '.
> This request was automatically upgraded to HTTPS, For more information see
> https://blog.chromium.org/2019/10/no-more-mixed-messages-about-https.html
> G.fc @ ASDoc.js:94
> (index):1 Mixed Content: The page at 'https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/'
> was
> loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure element '
>
> http://royale.codeoscopic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/apache-royale-tm-logo-light.svg
> '.
> This request was automatically upgraded to HTTPS, For more information see
> https://blog.chromium.org/2019/10/no-more-mixed-messages-about-https.html
> ASDoc.js:60 Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token t in JSON at position
> 8140
> at JSON.parse (<anonymous>)
> at uo.parse (ASDoc.js:392)
> at Kn.G.ed (ASDoc.js:320)
> at Hj (ASDoc.js:56)
> at Gj (ASDoc.js:57)
> at dp.G.dispatchEvent (ASDoc.js:55)
> at dp.J.dispatchEvent (ASDoc.js:60)
> at dp.Yn.dispatchEvent (ASDoc.js:353)
> at dp.G.Ln (ASDoc.js:471)
> (index):1 Mixed Content: The page at '
>
> https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!mx.controls.advancedDataGridClasses/AdvancedDataGridColumn
> '
> was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure stylesheet '
> http://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.7.0/css/font-awesome.min.css
> '.
> This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>.
Good stuff. Should I start a Jira ticket and dump all this information into
it, so we don't lose our minds trying to find it again?
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:40 PM GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies for posting images. Console dump. url:
>
> https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!mx.controls.advancedDataGridClasses/AdvancedDataGridColumn
>
> Mixed Content: The page at 'https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/' was loaded
> over HTTPS, but requested an insecure stylesheet '
> http://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.7.0/css/font-awesome.min.css
> '.
> This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.
> ASDoc.js:94 Mixed Content: The page at 'https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/'
> was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure element '
>
> http://royale.codeoscopic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/page-bg-1-1920x300.png
> '.
> This request was automatically upgraded to HTTPS, For more information see
> https://blog.chromium.org/2019/10/no-more-mixed-messages-about-https.html
> G.fc @ ASDoc.js:94
> (index):1 Mixed Content: The page at 'https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/'
> was
> loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure element '
>
> http://royale.codeoscopic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/apache-royale-tm-logo-light.svg
> '.
> This request was automatically upgraded to HTTPS, For more information see
> https://blog.chromium.org/2019/10/no-more-mixed-messages-about-https.html
> ASDoc.js:60 Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token t in JSON at position
> 8140
> at JSON.parse (<anonymous>)
> at uo.parse (ASDoc.js:392)
> at Kn.G.ed (ASDoc.js:320)
> at Hj (ASDoc.js:56)
> at Gj (ASDoc.js:57)
> at dp.G.dispatchEvent (ASDoc.js:55)
> at dp.J.dispatchEvent (ASDoc.js:60)
> at dp.Yn.dispatchEvent (ASDoc.js:353)
> at dp.G.Ln (ASDoc.js:471)
> (index):1 Mixed Content: The page at '
>
> https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!mx.controls.advancedDataGridClasses/AdvancedDataGridColumn
> '
> was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure stylesheet '
> http://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.7.0/css/font-awesome.min.css
> '.
> This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com>.
Apologies for posting images. Console dump. url:
https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!mx.controls.advancedDataGridClasses/AdvancedDataGridColumn
Mixed Content: The page at 'https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/' was loaded
over HTTPS, but requested an insecure stylesheet '
http://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.7.0/css/font-awesome.min.css'.
This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.
ASDoc.js:94 Mixed Content: The page at 'https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/'
was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure element '
http://royale.codeoscopic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/page-bg-1-1920x300.png'.
This request was automatically upgraded to HTTPS, For more information see
https://blog.chromium.org/2019/10/no-more-mixed-messages-about-https.html
G.fc @ ASDoc.js:94
(index):1 Mixed Content: The page at 'https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/' was
loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure element '
http://royale.codeoscopic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/apache-royale-tm-logo-light.svg'.
This request was automatically upgraded to HTTPS, For more information see
https://blog.chromium.org/2019/10/no-more-mixed-messages-about-https.html
ASDoc.js:60 Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token t in JSON at position
8140
at JSON.parse (<anonymous>)
at uo.parse (ASDoc.js:392)
at Kn.G.ed (ASDoc.js:320)
at Hj (ASDoc.js:56)
at Gj (ASDoc.js:57)
at dp.G.dispatchEvent (ASDoc.js:55)
at dp.J.dispatchEvent (ASDoc.js:60)
at dp.Yn.dispatchEvent (ASDoc.js:353)
at dp.G.Ln (ASDoc.js:471)
(index):1 Mixed Content: The page at '
https://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!mx.controls.advancedDataGridClasses/AdvancedDataGridColumn'
was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure stylesheet '
http://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.7.0/css/font-awesome.min.css'.
This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
I don’t remember how the content gets to https://royale.apache.org/asdoc<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Froyale.apache.org%2Fasdoc&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5185503cb1354f7f20a308d904274781%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637545389017137665%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=AXgLuc4EYmBljGeKwtsSDY9E7YFgFo%2B2IubAwbq%2B%2Fgs%3D&reserved=0>
There is/was a Jenkins job that builds asdoc with every change (ASDoc is a Royale app!). But if committers commit code with broken ASDoc then that will break the build and ruin ASDoc if it is somehow getting published to or redirected from that url.
Also, the CI hosting Jenkins goes down on occasion as well.
Volunteers are needed to fix broken ASDoc and make the app work better.
HTH,
-Alex
From: Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:08 AM
To: Apache Royale Development <de...@royale.apache.org>, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Subject: Re: Getting to 1.0
I have not done any work on the ASDocs section. We would be glad of any help we can get to make it more useful. Does it need a color guide at the top to indicate what blue, red, green mean...and then I guess we would have to check that that is implemented consistently.
I cannot see the two images you attached, as the email system is for plain-text messages only. If you can find those issues again and drop them into paste.apache.org<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5185503cb1354f7f20a308d904274781%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637545389017137665%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=XtChxh1c8qhFeII8P1EzAbc18NTm8mYxvdcfGKoM3%2Bg%3D&reserved=0>, I believe you could share the links in a message.
@Alex Harui<ma...@adobe.com> do you have any thoughts about why the ASDocs might not display on occasion? I have run into that too, and have had to basically refresh the browser window and try mys search again.
a
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:59 PM GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm specifically talking about the https://royale.apache.org/asdoc<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Froyale.apache.org%2Fasdoc&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5185503cb1354f7f20a308d904274781%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637545389017137665%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=AXgLuc4EYmBljGeKwtsSDY9E7YFgFo%2B2IubAwbq%2B%2Fgs%3D&reserved=0> and I'm using mostly emulation components. This is on the latest chrome browser on desktop and mobile (android). If there's another browser I should be using please let me know. Here's the errors I see all the time. Honestly never checked the console till now, that's on me.
Error! Filename not specified.
Error! Filename not specified.
From my perspective the docs are what should keep a developer from having to dig into the source code. One should be able to always trust the docs. Right now I don't. Here are my assumptions.
Blue properties/methods are implemented
Red properties/methods are NOT implemented
Green properties/methods added specifically for Royale?
An example:
mx:UIComponent the docs show the public function of "invalidateParentSizeAndDisplayList()" as blue
which I'm assuming means implemented. When I dig into the source code I see that this is actually a protected function and a trace indicating this is not implemented.
All that to say, I'm very willing to help with documentation and be the change I wish to see. I guess I'm just stressing the importance of this.
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:30 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>> wrote:
This is very important feedback. I have never had the docs fail to load, so
could you give more details? On a particular browser? on a particular
device?
As to content, aside from performance, what would you like to see more of
in the docs?
Andrew
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:27 PM GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> From a new developer perspective the documentation is awful. Half the time
> the docs won't even load and the other half you have to go searching
> through the source code anyway to see if that method is commented out. I
> use the flex as3 doc and go straight to the source code now. Not a fun way
> to develop.
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:44 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree about the documentation. If, indeed, that is the weak point, I
> will
> > see what I can do to improve it over the coming months. First stop will
> be
> > to ask folks to indicate what additional doc they would like to see...ah,
> > maybe another wiki page for capturing suggestions.
> >
> > If 0.98 actually happens in the next couple of months, might we dare to
> > think of 1.0 before the end of the year??
> >
> > a
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:36 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with this.
> > >
> > > I personally think that the strongest reason to not call it “1.0” is
> gaps
> > > in documentation. I wish I was better on that front, and we’d be in big
> > > trouble without Andrew… ;)
> > >
> > > Harbs
> > >
> > > > On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:23 AM, Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are
> > ready
> > > for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a
> marketing
> > > decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully)
> > > feedback to take care of.
> > > >
> > > > At least that’s how I think of it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Andrew Wetmore<ma...@gmail.com>>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM
> > > > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>>
> > > > Subject: Getting to 1.0
> > > >
> > > > I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have timelines,
> > > since
> > > > each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them.
> > > However...do
> > > > we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0
> > > release?
> > > > What critical elements are lacking?
> > > >
> > > > For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to attend
> > to
> > > > some of them.
> > > >
> > > > The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I don't
> > know
> > > > that that is a blocker to 1.0.
> > > >
> > > > Anything else?
> > > >
> > > > a
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Wetmore
> >
> > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14.blogspot.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5185503cb1354f7f20a308d904274781%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637545389017147622%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Nkc60Ri8LNeQYlSr5ydx%2FpvQ8y2AX83Tml3eTGU1aTI%3D&reserved=0>
> >
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14.blogspot.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5185503cb1354f7f20a308d904274781%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637545389017147622%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Nkc60Ri8LNeQYlSr5ydx%2FpvQ8y2AX83Tml3eTGU1aTI%3D&reserved=0>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14.blogspot.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5185503cb1354f7f20a308d904274781%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637545389017157576%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=O0XJLPMeh6AmXeYIYtZSqjlLrVwZaCHqeJlmht5DHi8%3D&reserved=0>
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>.
I have not done any work on the ASDocs section. We would be glad of any
help we can get to make it more useful. Does it need a color guide at the
top to indicate what blue, red, green mean...and then I guess we would have
to check that that is implemented consistently.
I cannot see the two images you attached, as the email system is for
plain-text messages only. If you can find those issues again and drop them
into paste.apache.org, I believe you could share the links in a message.
@Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> do you have any thoughts about why the
ASDocs might not display on occasion? I have run into that too, and have
had to basically refresh the browser window and try mys search again.
a
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:59 PM GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm specifically talking about the https://royale.apache.org/asdoc and
> I'm using mostly emulation components. This is on the latest chrome browser
> on desktop and mobile (android). If there's another browser I should be
> using please let me know. Here's the errors I see all the time. Honestly
> never checked the console till now, that's on me.
> [image: asdoc_royale.PNG]
>
> [image: asdoc_royale_console.PNG]
> From my perspective the docs are what should keep a developer from having
> to dig into the source code. One should be able to always trust the docs.
> Right now I don't. Here are my assumptions.
> Blue properties/methods are implemented
> Red properties/methods are NOT implemented
> Green properties/methods added specifically for Royale?
>
> An example:
> mx:UIComponent the docs show the public function of
> "invalidateParentSizeAndDisplayList()" as blue
> which I'm assuming means implemented. When I dig into the source code I
> see that this is actually a protected function and a trace indicating this
> is not implemented.
>
> All that to say, I'm very willing to help with documentation and be the
> change I wish to see. I guess I'm just stressing the importance of this.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:30 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is very important feedback. I have never had the docs fail to load,
>> so
>> could you give more details? On a particular browser? on a particular
>> device?
>>
>> As to content, aside from performance, what would you like to see more of
>> in the docs?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:27 PM GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > From a new developer perspective the documentation is awful. Half the
>> time
>> > the docs won't even load and the other half you have to go searching
>> > through the source code anyway to see if that method is commented out. I
>> > use the flex as3 doc and go straight to the source code now. Not a fun
>> way
>> > to develop.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:44 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I agree about the documentation. If, indeed, that is the weak point, I
>> > will
>> > > see what I can do to improve it over the coming months. First stop
>> will
>> > be
>> > > to ask folks to indicate what additional doc they would like to
>> see...ah,
>> > > maybe another wiki page for capturing suggestions.
>> > >
>> > > If 0.98 actually happens in the next couple of months, might we dare
>> to
>> > > think of 1.0 before the end of the year??
>> > >
>> > > a
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:36 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I agree with this.
>> > > >
>> > > > I personally think that the strongest reason to not call it “1.0” is
>> > gaps
>> > > > in documentation. I wish I was better on that front, and we’d be in
>> big
>> > > > trouble without Andrew… ;)
>> > > >
>> > > > Harbs
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:23 AM, Yishay Weiss <
>> yishayjobs@hotmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are
>> > > ready
>> > > > for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a
>> > marketing
>> > > > decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully)
>> > > > feedback to take care of.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > At least that’s how I think of it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > From: Andrew Wetmore<ma...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM
>> > > > > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
>> > > > > Subject: Getting to 1.0
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have
>> timelines,
>> > > > since
>> > > > > each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them.
>> > > > However...do
>> > > > > we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0
>> > > > release?
>> > > > > What critical elements are lacking?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to
>> attend
>> > > to
>> > > > > some of them.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I
>> don't
>> > > know
>> > > > > that that is a blocker to 1.0.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Anything else?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > a
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Andrew Wetmore
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Andrew Wetmore
>> > >
>> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Wetmore
>>
>> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>>
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com>.
I'm specifically talking about the https://royale.apache.org/asdoc and I'm
using mostly emulation components. This is on the latest chrome browser on
desktop and mobile (android). If there's another browser I should be using
please let me know. Here's the errors I see all the time. Honestly never
checked the console till now, that's on me.
[image: asdoc_royale.PNG]
[image: asdoc_royale_console.PNG]
From my perspective the docs are what should keep a developer from having
to dig into the source code. One should be able to always trust the docs.
Right now I don't. Here are my assumptions.
Blue properties/methods are implemented
Red properties/methods are NOT implemented
Green properties/methods added specifically for Royale?
An example:
mx:UIComponent the docs show the public function of
"invalidateParentSizeAndDisplayList()" as blue
which I'm assuming means implemented. When I dig into the source code I see
that this is actually a protected function and a trace indicating this is
not implemented.
All that to say, I'm very willing to help with documentation and be the
change I wish to see. I guess I'm just stressing the importance of this.
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:30 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is very important feedback. I have never had the docs fail to load, so
> could you give more details? On a particular browser? on a particular
> device?
>
> As to content, aside from performance, what would you like to see more of
> in the docs?
>
> Andrew
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:27 PM GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From a new developer perspective the documentation is awful. Half the
> time
> > the docs won't even load and the other half you have to go searching
> > through the source code anyway to see if that method is commented out. I
> > use the flex as3 doc and go straight to the source code now. Not a fun
> way
> > to develop.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:44 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree about the documentation. If, indeed, that is the weak point, I
> > will
> > > see what I can do to improve it over the coming months. First stop will
> > be
> > > to ask folks to indicate what additional doc they would like to
> see...ah,
> > > maybe another wiki page for capturing suggestions.
> > >
> > > If 0.98 actually happens in the next couple of months, might we dare to
> > > think of 1.0 before the end of the year??
> > >
> > > a
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:36 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with this.
> > > >
> > > > I personally think that the strongest reason to not call it “1.0” is
> > gaps
> > > > in documentation. I wish I was better on that front, and we’d be in
> big
> > > > trouble without Andrew… ;)
> > > >
> > > > Harbs
> > > >
> > > > > On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:23 AM, Yishay Weiss <yishayjobs@hotmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are
> > > ready
> > > > for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a
> > marketing
> > > > decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully)
> > > > feedback to take care of.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least that’s how I think of it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Andrew Wetmore<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM
> > > > > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > > > > Subject: Getting to 1.0
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have
> timelines,
> > > > since
> > > > > each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them.
> > > > However...do
> > > > > we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0
> > > > release?
> > > > > What critical elements are lacking?
> > > > >
> > > > > For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to
> attend
> > > to
> > > > > some of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I don't
> > > know
> > > > > that that is a blocker to 1.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anything else?
> > > > >
> > > > > a
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Edward Stangler <es...@bradmark.com>.
I've had many problems in the past on Firefox (latest), where it just
never finishes loading (just says "Loading..." in big letters under the
class name, for example).
Seems to happen on some pages but not others. It's so bad that I
basically don't look at the API docs anymore.
On 4/20/2021 11:31 AM, Andrew Wetmore wrote:
> This is very important feedback. I have never had the docs fail to load, so
> could you give more details? On a particular browser? on a particular
> device?
>
> As to content, aside from performance, what would you like to see more of
> in the docs?
>
> Andrew
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:27 PM GAbe Barbosa wrote:
>
>> From a new developer perspective the documentation is awful. Half the time
>> the docs won't even load and the other half you have to go searching
>> through the source code anyway to see if that method is commented out. I
>> use the flex as3 doc and go straight to the source code now. Not a fun way
>> to develop.
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>.
This is very important feedback. I have never had the docs fail to load, so
could you give more details? On a particular browser? on a particular
device?
As to content, aside from performance, what would you like to see more of
in the docs?
Andrew
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 1:27 PM GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From a new developer perspective the documentation is awful. Half the time
> the docs won't even load and the other half you have to go searching
> through the source code anyway to see if that method is commented out. I
> use the flex as3 doc and go straight to the source code now. Not a fun way
> to develop.
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:44 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree about the documentation. If, indeed, that is the weak point, I
> will
> > see what I can do to improve it over the coming months. First stop will
> be
> > to ask folks to indicate what additional doc they would like to see...ah,
> > maybe another wiki page for capturing suggestions.
> >
> > If 0.98 actually happens in the next couple of months, might we dare to
> > think of 1.0 before the end of the year??
> >
> > a
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:36 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with this.
> > >
> > > I personally think that the strongest reason to not call it “1.0” is
> gaps
> > > in documentation. I wish I was better on that front, and we’d be in big
> > > trouble without Andrew… ;)
> > >
> > > Harbs
> > >
> > > > On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:23 AM, Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are
> > ready
> > > for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a
> marketing
> > > decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully)
> > > feedback to take care of.
> > > >
> > > > At least that’s how I think of it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Andrew Wetmore<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM
> > > > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: Getting to 1.0
> > > >
> > > > I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have timelines,
> > > since
> > > > each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them.
> > > However...do
> > > > we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0
> > > release?
> > > > What critical elements are lacking?
> > > >
> > > > For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to attend
> > to
> > > > some of them.
> > > >
> > > > The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I don't
> > know
> > > > that that is a blocker to 1.0.
> > > >
> > > > Anything else?
> > > >
> > > > a
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Wetmore
> >
> > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> >
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by GAbe Barbosa <gb...@gmail.com>.
From a new developer perspective the documentation is awful. Half the time
the docs won't even load and the other half you have to go searching
through the source code anyway to see if that method is commented out. I
use the flex as3 doc and go straight to the source code now. Not a fun way
to develop.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:44 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree about the documentation. If, indeed, that is the weak point, I will
> see what I can do to improve it over the coming months. First stop will be
> to ask folks to indicate what additional doc they would like to see...ah,
> maybe another wiki page for capturing suggestions.
>
> If 0.98 actually happens in the next couple of months, might we dare to
> think of 1.0 before the end of the year??
>
> a
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:36 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with this.
> >
> > I personally think that the strongest reason to not call it “1.0” is gaps
> > in documentation. I wish I was better on that front, and we’d be in big
> > trouble without Andrew… ;)
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > > On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:23 AM, Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are
> ready
> > for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a marketing
> > decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully)
> > feedback to take care of.
> > >
> > > At least that’s how I think of it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Andrew Wetmore<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM
> > > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Getting to 1.0
> > >
> > > I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have timelines,
> > since
> > > each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them.
> > However...do
> > > we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0
> > release?
> > > What critical elements are lacking?
> > >
> > > For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to attend
> to
> > > some of them.
> > >
> > > The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I don't
> know
> > > that that is a blocker to 1.0.
> > >
> > > Anything else?
> > >
> > > a
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>.
I agree about the documentation. If, indeed, that is the weak point, I will
see what I can do to improve it over the coming months. First stop will be
to ask folks to indicate what additional doc they would like to see...ah,
maybe another wiki page for capturing suggestions.
If 0.98 actually happens in the next couple of months, might we dare to
think of 1.0 before the end of the year??
a
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:36 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with this.
>
> I personally think that the strongest reason to not call it “1.0” is gaps
> in documentation. I wish I was better on that front, and we’d be in big
> trouble without Andrew… ;)
>
> Harbs
>
> > On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:23 AM, Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are ready
> for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a marketing
> decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully)
> feedback to take care of.
> >
> > At least that’s how I think of it.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Andrew Wetmore<ma...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: Getting to 1.0
> >
> > I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have timelines,
> since
> > each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them.
> However...do
> > we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0
> release?
> > What critical elements are lacking?
> >
> > For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to attend to
> > some of them.
> >
> > The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I don't know
> > that that is a blocker to 1.0.
> >
> > Anything else?
> >
> > a
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Wetmore
> >
>
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
I agree with this.
I personally think that the strongest reason to not call it “1.0” is gaps in documentation. I wish I was better on that front, and we’d be in big trouble without Andrew… ;)
Harbs
> On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:23 AM, Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are ready for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a marketing decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully) feedback to take care of.
>
> At least that’s how I think of it.
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Wetmore<ma...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Getting to 1.0
>
> I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have timelines, since
> each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them. However...do
> we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0 release?
> What critical elements are lacking?
>
> For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to attend to
> some of them.
>
> The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I don't know
> that that is a blocker to 1.0.
>
> Anything else?
>
> a
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
RE: Getting to 1.0
Posted by Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>.
There are already some Royale apps in production so I think we are ready for 1.0 in terms of code. Whether to call it 1.0 is probably a marketing decision at this stage. There will be announcements and (hopefully) feedback to take care of.
At least that’s how I think of it.
From: Andrew Wetmore<ma...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Getting to 1.0
I know it is not in the nature of Apache projects to have timelines, since
each volunteer chooses to work on the task that attracts them. However...do
we know what we need to do to get from now (almost 0.9.8) to a 1.0 release?
What critical elements are lacking?
For me, there are big gaps in documentation, and I will try to attend to
some of them.
The release-build process still seems slow and painful, but I don't know
that that is a blocker to 1.0.
Anything else?
a
--
Andrew Wetmore