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 <cottag...@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 <gbarbosa...@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 <cottag...@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 <harbs.li...@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 <yishayj...@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<mailto:cottag...@gmail.com> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:42 PM > > > > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@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/ >
