On 11/20/12 9:45 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 11/17/12 12:42 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> Alexandro Colorado wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>>>>> I have been reviewing some documentation regarding the development of >>>>>> OpenOffice extensions[1] and I see there are many thing missing. >>>>> It could be, even though I remember that those pages were enough for >>>>> me to >>>>> build the Italian dictionary extension (but it's a non-code extension). >>>> I am not sure what to make of your comment since it has nothing much >>>> to do >>>> with the issues I listed. Is there an counter proposal? or you think >>>> there >>>> is no need to update it? >>> >>> No, I was merely saying that some of the content there is still >>> serviceable. But if that section as a whole can be improved, and someone >>> wants to try, I'm surely in favor of seeing it improved! >>> >> >> well it can be always improved and it would be nice to have it better >> organized. >> >> Let me explain some background how it was intended >> >> The DevGuide [1] was a huge documentation project sponsored by Sun to >> create a useful developer documentation. The idea was realyl to create >> the core docu that can be used by experienced developers as well as >> authors of more specialized docu. See for example Andrew Pitonyak's >> Basic Guide, he used the DevGuide a lot as far as I know. >> >> The SDK was the extension to the DevGuide and provides the related >> examples and API reference documentation (version dependent). The close >> relation between DevGuide and API reference makes this clear. >> >> The code-snippet base was one approach to collect more and more useful >> snippets that can be easy used and adapted for personal needs. An idea >> to involve more volunteers. My idea was always to make use of useful >> Basic snippet in the Basic IDE directly (but this was more a dream ;-)) >> >> We can provide the same in the wiki where I have tried to organize the >> API section in some better structured way (hierarchical) and always used >> the at least the category API [2]. Using categories is key here because >> you get a lot of nice features for free. See for example the samples [3] >> and the tutorials [4] section which are both divided in language >> sections and aggregate related pages. Check the Cpp tutorials [5] and >> you will see what I mean. >> > > By the way, my initial comments were referring to Extension development > more than API itself.
I know but the difference is not very big. Extension development based to 90% on the API. Juergen > > >> >> You can add the correct categories to existing pagers and can make them >> easy navigatable via the API pages or in the same way via the extension >> page where I had the same idea in mind but never really found the time >> to do it. >> >> >> [1] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide >> [2] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API >> [3] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Samples >> [4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Tutorials >> [5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Tutorials/Cpp >> >> We don't have to move around a lot of pages and can start by using the >> correct categories and use aggregated pages to make related pages better >> usable. >> >> The API reference docu is created during the build and I update it after >> a new release. But here is still work to do to update the links in and >> from the DevGuide etc. I worked on a wiki bot to analyze for example the >> DevGuide section automatically but never finished this work. Before we >> moved the DevGuide in the wiki I did the same with perl scripts on the >> raw DevGuide sources. >> >> >> Juergen >> >> >>>>> A service called codesnippets[4] is also no longer there ... >>>>>> [4] http://codesnippets.services.openoffice.org/index.xml >>>>> I can't answer the other questions. But Codesnippets is still online: >> as >>>>> far as I can tell, the above link still works. >>>> Is there but clearly unmantained, the CSS is broken and the latest >>>> entry is >>>> pretty old. >>> >>> I think the maintainer stated explicitly on ooo-dev that he would keep >>> it online. Maybe you can find more in the ooo-dev archives. Anyway, it >>> is not a resource under the project's control and I don't know if there >>> are plans to update it further (you are right in saying that there is no >>> recent content). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andrea. >> >> > >
