On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think I’ve covered all the work related to this in a final PR, > https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/6124. It was supposed to be simple but > I discovered quite a few problems… > > I suspect it would be fairly simple to back port these changes to 3.11.x. > Shall I look into doing that? 3.7.x would probably be harder, but I could > look into that also. 3.4.x is about to be removed so I won’t consider it, nor > 2.x >
Hmm I would keep it for main only - there are too much changes already. We should keep the LTS branches stable and only do changes if its a bug or CVE etc. > David Jencks > > > On Sep 13, 2021, at 9:05 AM, David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Sep 13, 2021, at 8:05 AM, Zoran Regvart <zo...@regvart.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Cameleers, > >> some of these changes are in, and for the last one explicitly stated > >> in the $subject I'll create a pull request soon. > >> > >> You will notice changes in the workflow and in the git repository. > >> We're now using symbolic links and not copying files over to the docs > >> directory, with the jsonpath macro, that's in the works now, the > >> configuration tables will not be generated with the Maven plugin. > >> > >> So far we did not have major issues with this, with jsonpath macro > >> change I do anticipate some issues as the assumption there is a > >> one-to-one relationship between the .adoc file and the .json metadata > >> file. And that is not true for some cases. Right now I'm thinking in > >> those cases we keep the Maven plugin, but I have to see if that can be > >> avoided. > > > > I thought I’d taken care of these, but I could easily have missed some. > > The name of the json file for a component/dataformat/etc page is in the > > `shortname` attribute so I think we can deal with these cases by setting > > that attribute explicitly in the maven plugin when we write out the header. > > I remember doing this explicitly for mail/imap/smtp/etc and I thought > > bindy just worked. The bindy results look OK to me… > > > > One possibility for the future relates to the annotations docs that I think > > are only in bindy at the moment. Architecturally I don’t like having the > > maven doc construction plugin scanning the source for annotations. I think > > it would be more appropriate to move this scanning code to whatever is > > constructing the json metadata file and put the results into the json file. > > That’s definitely not part of this current effort :-) > > > > Thanks for all the work! It definitely makes sense to roll this out in the > > small chunks you are creating, although that certainly wasn’t how I > > developed it! Having more eyes is wonderful :-) > > > > David Jencks > > > >> > >> Anyhow, happy to hear comments on this and do reach out if you notice > >> any faults on the website or issues in your workflow... > >> > >> zoran > >> -- > >> Zoran Regvart > -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
