[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-14910?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17116892#comment-17116892
]
Aemie commented on CAMEL-14910:
-------------------------------
See, in the *gulpfile.js*, we have included all the *summary.adoc* files, now
the files with summary have the initial name such as *ignite-* and all it's
similarly related components have the same structure with *ignite-* , so we
could find a way to extract the name before the summary and include all the
components with the similar name with the summary depth of 2.
> Decide if component summary pages are a good idea
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CAMEL-14910
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-14910
> Project: Camel
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: website
> Affects Versions: 3.2.0
> Reporter: David Jencks
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: aws2.png, getting-started.png
>
>
> I discovered some component summary pages while working on CAMEL-14874
> and included them in the nav pane and index table. Claus suggested that the
> Spring one was useful and the others should be dropped. The Kubernetes
> summary page is heavily linked back and forth to the individual Kubernetes
> components.
>
> In general, due to the extremely long components list, I'm inclined to think
> that any possible kind of grouping is a good idea. If there are going to be
> summary pages, then they should all be similar in some way.
> * Should there be summary pages for groups of related components?
> * What should their structure and appearance be?
> * Should the nav pane indent the components in a group?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
