Hi,
As a beginer user, I agree with Geoff ! We should have a lot of what he's
suggesting, especially some delineation of User, admin and developer. It'll
help!

Rupinder

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Geoff Macartney <
[email protected]> wrote:

> hi all,
>
> Was just thinking some more about our docs, prompted by Thomas's great work
> on the redesign of the front page.
>
> The update front page will be great, but I think it will still leave us
> with work to do on the overall structure and coverage of the docs in total.
> It feels to me like there are two things we need to do:
>
> - improve the structure, for clarity, and
> - fill in the main gap in the docs, namely the reference-level detail on
> each and every part of Brooklyn
>
> We need to think carefully about what we want in the docs and the intended
> audience.
>
> I think we maybe need a clearer separation between 'users' (people whose
> interest is the apps), 'admins' who have
> to manage Brooklyn, and 'developers' who'll work with the code.
>
> Not sure how it should be structured but maybe something like:
>
> 1. Learn more - 1 page overview of Brooklyn including example blueprint and
> a description of the lifecycle of deploying it
> 2. Getting started - how to get and run Brooklyn and deploy an app
> 3. User Guide
> - tutorials in more detail than getting started (cover DSL & wiring,
> clusters...)
> - plus explanations of all main aspects - some overlap with 'Reference'
> (see below) but more a how-to guide than a comprehensive reference.
> 4. Admin Guide
> 5. Developer Guide
> 6. Blueprint reference - comprehensive listing of all syntax and semantics
> of blueprints: including:
> blueprints versus catalog; explanations of basics such as
> entity/location/application, 'type', 'id', how brooklyn.config works,
> provisioning properties etc; composing catalog items; inheritance; every
> DSL method in detail; detailed description of every out-of-the-box entity;
> detailed description of every enricher, policy, etc; testing;  ... and lots
> more
>
> What do you think?
>
> Geoff
>

Reply via email to