We should also take into account whether Java users will be interested in .NET/C++ and vise versa. In my opinion, the users for .NET/C++ don't intersect with Java users, that's why I suggested a separate documentation space for them.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote: > I like 2nd most of all. > > 1. Current docs have lots of general info and concepts explanation. > 2. If platform doesn't support anything, you put it right on feature page. > > Thanks! > > Yakov > On Sep 14, 2015 12:51, "Vladimir Ozerov" <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > We need to add documentation for .Net and CPP platforms. There are > several > > approaches: > > > > 1) Just add corresponding .Net/CPP code snippets to existing docs. > > Very easy to implement, but platform users will have to constantly switch > > from Java code snippets and will not understand which features exist in > the > > platform and which are not. > > > > 2) Place platform docs in a separate paragraph. E.g. > > root > > |-- Clustering > > |-- ... > > |-- .Net > > | |-- Clustering > > |-- CPP > > | |-- Clustering > > > > Not very good idea, we want to position .Net and CPP as a fully-fledged > > products, not as some secondary extension to Java version. > > > > 3) Create separate *readme.io <http://readme.io>* space, e.g. > > *https://apacheignite-dotnet.readme.io/ > > <https://apacheignite-dotnet.readme.io/>* and put all relevant docs > here. > > The most user-friendly solution, but require more work and lead to docs > > duplication what will make maintenance harder. > > > > I tend to prefer the last approach. Any ideas/thoughts? > > > > Vladimir. > > >
