Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Andrew Wetmore]

I just created the first pass on "Welcome/Get Started/Development tools",
where I hope to list the IDEs that support Royale. I would think "How to
use FlexJS with Flash Builder" should be in the "Get Started" folder, with
a link from the "Development tools" page.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> That's fine.
>
> I would like to migrate the "How to use FlexJS with Flash Builder" to
> royale-docs at some point, maybe during the next release vote.  Thoughts
> on where it should go?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/31/18, 9:03 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >For now I will add a passage along these lines:
> >
> >"If you are using an IDE such as Blah or Blah, it will create the standard
> >folder structure for you when you create a Royale project. If you are
> >working outside of an IDE, and perhaps using command-line instruction to
> >compile your code, here is how to structure your project."
> >
> >On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, good question.  It doesn’t take sense to me to explain how to use
> >> each IDE in the tutorial, so I left it oriented to command-line/NPM
> >>which
> >> I think will be how you are set up after following the Get
> >> Started/Download sections.
> >>
> >> Maybe GetStarted should have other Get Started With Moonshine, Get
> >>Started
> >> with VSCode, Get Started with Flash Builder, and we can also write
> >> separate Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with
> >> Flash Builder sections?
> >>
> >> Up to you, really.
> >>
> >> My 2 cents,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 1/31/18, 7:41 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Andrew,
> >> >
> >> >Great question. Each IDE have different approach. I'm talking about
> >>both
> >> >which fully supports Royale Moonshine and VSCode. Moonshine create
> >>basic
> >> >folder structure.
> >> >Instruction should refer maybe to both IDEs in case of creation.
> >> >
> >> >There is also Maven way of creating structures for Hello World
> >> >application.
> >> >Everything is here [1]
> >> >
> >> >[1]
> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FQuick-Start=02%
> >> 7C01%7Caharui%40adob
> >> >e.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa407fb2ff08d568c12b99%
> 7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c3
> >> 0bf
> >> >4%7C0%7C0%7C636530101227203024=KnVQ2J02MT1QWgY9QGa8Jrbc%
> >> 2BlGggynn5Gt
> >> >gp9EuV6A%3D=0
> >> >
> >> >Thanks, Piotr
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >2018-01-31 16:10 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> Here's one question right away. I read this instruction:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Let's say you are creating a project called MyFirstRoyaleApp.
> >>Create a
> >> >> MyFirstRoyaleApp folder and in it create a folder named "src" and put
> >> >>your
> >> >> source code in there.  If you do that, the compiler will put the
> >>output
> >> >>in
> >> >> a "bin" folder"."
> >> >>
> >> >> However, my experience working with IDEs is that, if they support
> >> >>Royale,
> >> >> they know to build the standard file structure as soon as I create a
> >>new
> >> >> project, without my having to do it. Is the instruction for people
> >>who
> >> >>are
> >> >> going the command-line route, rather than using an IDE? If so, we
> >>should
> >> >> say so.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Yishay Weiss
> >><yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > This looks very promising. I’m going to read this in batches. Some
> >> >> > feedback on ‘The data model’.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > repos = configurator.data.repos;
> >> >> >   projectName = configurator.data.projectName;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Shou

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Alex Harui]

That's fine.

I would like to migrate the "How to use FlexJS with Flash Builder" to
royale-docs at some point, maybe during the next release vote.  Thoughts
on where it should go?

-Alex

On 1/31/18, 9:03 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:

>For now I will add a passage along these lines:
>
>"If you are using an IDE such as Blah or Blah, it will create the standard
>folder structure for you when you create a Royale project. If you are
>working outside of an IDE, and perhaps using command-line instruction to
>compile your code, here is how to structure your project."
>
>On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> Yes, good question.  It doesn’t take sense to me to explain how to use
>> each IDE in the tutorial, so I left it oriented to command-line/NPM
>>which
>> I think will be how you are set up after following the Get
>> Started/Download sections.
>>
>> Maybe GetStarted should have other Get Started With Moonshine, Get
>>Started
>> with VSCode, Get Started with Flash Builder, and we can also write
>> separate Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with
>> Flash Builder sections?
>>
>> Up to you, really.
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 1/31/18, 7:41 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Andrew,
>> >
>> >Great question. Each IDE have different approach. I'm talking about
>>both
>> >which fully supports Royale Moonshine and VSCode. Moonshine create
>>basic
>> >folder structure.
>> >Instruction should refer maybe to both IDEs in case of creation.
>> >
>> >There is also Maven way of creating structures for Hello World
>> >application.
>> >Everything is here [1]
>> >
>> >[1]
>> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FQuick-Start=02%
>> 7C01%7Caharui%40adob
>> >e.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa407fb2ff08d568c12b99%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c3
>> 0bf
>> >4%7C0%7C0%7C636530101227203024=KnVQ2J02MT1QWgY9QGa8Jrbc%
>> 2BlGggynn5Gt
>> >gp9EuV6A%3D=0
>> >
>> >Thanks, Piotr
>> >
>> >
>> >2018-01-31 16:10 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >> Here's one question right away. I read this instruction:
>> >>
>> >> "Let's say you are creating a project called MyFirstRoyaleApp.
>>Create a
>> >> MyFirstRoyaleApp folder and in it create a folder named "src" and put
>> >>your
>> >> source code in there.  If you do that, the compiler will put the
>>output
>> >>in
>> >> a "bin" folder"."
>> >>
>> >> However, my experience working with IDEs is that, if they support
>> >>Royale,
>> >> they know to build the standard file structure as soon as I create a
>>new
>> >> project, without my having to do it. Is the instruction for people
>>who
>> >>are
>> >> going the command-line route, rather than using an IDE? If so, we
>>should
>> >> say so.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Yishay Weiss
>><yishayj...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This looks very promising. I’m going to read this in batches. Some
>> >> > feedback on ‘The data model’.
>> >> >
>> >> > repos = configurator.data.repos;
>> >> >   projectName = configurator.data.projectName;
>> >> >
>> >> > Shouldn’t these be cast to a String and an Array respectively?
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, I find these lines a bit misleading
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 
>> >> >
>> >> > import org.apache.royale.events.Event;
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Since some of the viewers will be first timers I think it’s
>>important
>> >>to
>> >> > put code in script blocks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, related to the last comment can you make the full source for
>>the
>> >> > example available somewhere?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 20

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Andrew Wetmore]

For now I will add a passage along these lines:

"If you are using an IDE such as Blah or Blah, it will create the standard
folder structure for you when you create a Royale project. If you are
working outside of an IDE, and perhaps using command-line instruction to
compile your code, here is how to structure your project."

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Yes, good question.  It doesn’t take sense to me to explain how to use
> each IDE in the tutorial, so I left it oriented to command-line/NPM which
> I think will be how you are set up after following the Get
> Started/Download sections.
>
> Maybe GetStarted should have other Get Started With Moonshine, Get Started
> with VSCode, Get Started with Flash Builder, and we can also write
> separate Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with
> Flash Builder sections?
>
> Up to you, really.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/31/18, 7:41 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Andrew,
> >
> >Great question. Each IDE have different approach. I'm talking about both
> >which fully supports Royale Moonshine and VSCode. Moonshine create basic
> >folder structure.
> >Instruction should refer maybe to both IDEs in case of creation.
> >
> >There is also Maven way of creating structures for Hello World
> >application.
> >Everything is here [1]
> >
> >[1]
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FQuick-Start=02%
> 7C01%7Caharui%40adob
> >e.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa407fb2ff08d568c12b99%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c3
> 0bf
> >4%7C0%7C0%7C636530101227203024=KnVQ2J02MT1QWgY9QGa8Jrbc%
> 2BlGggynn5Gt
> >gp9EuV6A%3D=0
> >
> >Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >
> >2018-01-31 16:10 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Here's one question right away. I read this instruction:
> >>
> >> "Let's say you are creating a project called MyFirstRoyaleApp. Create a
> >> MyFirstRoyaleApp folder and in it create a folder named "src" and put
> >>your
> >> source code in there.  If you do that, the compiler will put the output
> >>in
> >> a "bin" folder"."
> >>
> >> However, my experience working with IDEs is that, if they support
> >>Royale,
> >> they know to build the standard file structure as soon as I create a new
> >> project, without my having to do it. Is the instruction for people who
> >>are
> >> going the command-line route, rather than using an IDE? If so, we should
> >> say so.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This looks very promising. I’m going to read this in batches. Some
> >> > feedback on ‘The data model’.
> >> >
> >> > repos = configurator.data.repos;
> >> >   projectName = configurator.data.projectName;
> >> >
> >> > Shouldn’t these be cast to a String and an Array respectively?
> >> >
> >> > Also, I find these lines a bit misleading
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > import org.apache.royale.events.Event;
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Since some of the viewers will be first timers I think it’s important
> >>to
> >> > put code in script blocks.
> >> >
> >> > Also, related to the last comment can you make the full source for the
> >> > example available somewhere?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:50 AM
> >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents
> >>for
> >> > Royale help documentation)
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I've pushed what I will call a first draft of the main portion of a
> >> > tutorial for using Royale.
> >> >
> >> > See:
> >> >
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapacheroy
> >>aleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2F&
> data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40
> >>adobe.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa407fb2ff08d568c12b99%
> 7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b2

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Andrew Wetmore]

>>Since some of the viewers will be first timers I think it’s important to
>>put code in script blocks.

>That's up to Andrew.  He's our "editor-in-chief".

Argh! But, yes, code should usually be in script blocks. I will go look at
the specific page.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

>
>
> On 1/31/18, 6:53 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:
>
> >This looks very promising. I’m going to read this in batches. Some
> >feedback on ‘The data model’.
> >
> >repos = configurator.data.repos;
> >  projectName = configurator.data.projectName;
> >
> >Shouldn’t these be cast to a String and an Array respectively?
>
> I didn't get any warnings.  "data" should be "json".  I forgot to update
> that.
>
> >
> >Also, I find these lines a bit misleading
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >import org.apache.royale.events.Event;
>
> >Since some of the viewers will be first timers I think it’s important to
> >put code in script blocks.
>
> That's up to Andrew.  He's our "editor-in-chief".
>
> >
> >Also, related to the last comment can you make the full source for the
> >example available somewhere?
>
> I will check the project into our examples folder today.
>
> Thanks for looking through it.
> -Alex
> >
>
>


-- 
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Alex Harui]

Yes, good question.  It doesn’t take sense to me to explain how to use
each IDE in the tutorial, so I left it oriented to command-line/NPM which
I think will be how you are set up after following the Get
Started/Download sections.

Maybe GetStarted should have other Get Started With Moonshine, Get Started
with VSCode, Get Started with Flash Builder, and we can also write
separate Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with Moonshine, Tutorial with
Flash Builder sections?

Up to you, really.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

On 1/31/18, 7:41 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Andrew,
>
>Great question. Each IDE have different approach. I'm talking about both
>which fully supports Royale Moonshine and VSCode. Moonshine create basic
>folder structure.
>Instruction should refer maybe to both IDEs in case of creation.
>
>There is also Maven way of creating structures for Hello World
>application.
>Everything is here [1]
>
>[1] 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FQuick-Start=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adob
>e.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa407fb2ff08d568c12b99%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf
>4%7C0%7C0%7C636530101227203024=KnVQ2J02MT1QWgY9QGa8Jrbc%2BlGggynn5Gt
>gp9EuV6A%3D=0
>
>Thanks, Piotr
>
>
>2018-01-31 16:10 GMT+01:00 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Here's one question right away. I read this instruction:
>>
>> "Let's say you are creating a project called MyFirstRoyaleApp. Create a
>> MyFirstRoyaleApp folder and in it create a folder named "src" and put
>>your
>> source code in there.  If you do that, the compiler will put the output
>>in
>> a "bin" folder"."
>>
>> However, my experience working with IDEs is that, if they support
>>Royale,
>> they know to build the standard file structure as soon as I create a new
>> project, without my having to do it. Is the instruction for people who
>>are
>> going the command-line route, rather than using an IDE? If so, we should
>> say so.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This looks very promising. I’m going to read this in batches. Some
>> > feedback on ‘The data model’.
>> >
>> > repos = configurator.data.repos;
>> >   projectName = configurator.data.projectName;
>> >
>> > Shouldn’t these be cast to a String and an Array respectively?
>> >
>> > Also, I find these lines a bit misleading
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > import org.apache.royale.events.Event;
>> >
>> >
>> > Since some of the viewers will be first timers I think it’s important
>>to
>> > put code in script blocks.
>> >
>> > Also, related to the last comment can you make the full source for the
>> > example available somewhere?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:50 AM
>> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
>> > Subject: Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents
>>for
>> > Royale help documentation)
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I've pushed what I will call a first draft of the main portion of a
>> > tutorial for using Royale.
>> >
>> > See:
>> > 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheroy
>>aleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40
>>adobe.com%7Cd4d0d10e47aa407fb2ff08d568c12b99%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23
>>c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636530101227203024=Fq1N60QjsvD1GcKQrmkIlAvDaF3PEor
>>HalaPaaNa6nU%3D=0
>> > RoyaleDocs_Stagin
>> > g/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/_site/create-an-
>> > application/application-tuto
>> > rial.html
>> >
>> > Feedback welcome.  Looks like it might be more than 10 minutes, but it
>> was
>> > an interesting look through what Royale can and can't do.
>> >
>> > A few things I thought of:
>> > -DataGrid in Express should probably default to using percentage
>>column
>> > sizes.  Then the apps will be "responsive" by default.
>> > -If DataGrid could handle plain Array, it would save a few lines in
>>the
>> > tutorial.
>> > -Should this example look better out of the box?  Different borders or
>> > something like that?
>> >
>> > Other than responding to feedback on the tutori

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Alex Harui]

Hi Andrew,

All discussion should be public so on this thread is best unless in-line
comments will communicate better.  Assuming those comments get transmitted
to this list (which it should).

Thanks,
-Alex

On 1/31/18, 6:51 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi, @Alex. I have some basic questions about the tutorial. Do you want me
>to post them here, in comments in the tutorial text, or in direct messages
>to you?
>
>On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:02 AM, Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Oh, this looks very interesting. I look forward to stepping through the
>> whole thing.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I forgot to mention that the tutorial requires the nightly build.
>>>
>>> Get Outlook for
>>>Android<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>Faka.ms%2Fghei36=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9bced78e94d44bfec6f
>>>208d568ba245f%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C6365300710613
>>>91871=124mT77iFiv8k8Itgxne4cdi8W%2F5mqQtZkg9MWsBviM%3D=0>
>>>
>>> ____________
>>> From: Alex Harui
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:49:58 PM
>>> To: dev@royale.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents
>>>for
>>> Royale help documentation)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've pushed what I will call a first draft of the main portion of a
>>> tutorial for using Royale.
>>>
>>> See:
>>> 
>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachero
>>>yaleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRo=02%7C01%7Caharu
>>>i%40adobe.com%7C9bced78e94d44bfec6f208d568ba245f%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a
>>>67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636530071061391871=AiGPvnfOFpboLx7ek0kkm3hzz
>>>gYKc8pMluBAhnMf%2FS0%3D=0
>>> yaleDocs_Stagin
>>> g/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/_site/create-an-application/
>>> application-tuto
>>> rial.html
>>> 
>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacher
>>>oyaleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyaleDocs_Staging%2Fl
>>>astSuccessfulBuild%2Fartifact%2F_site%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fapplicat
>>>ion-tutorial.html=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9bced78e94d44bfec6
>>>f208d568ba245f%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636530071061
>>>391871=CJOJq26OGQ7FqXFQXm%2BqKUh5Lz0CSBE1P5FUe66UMg8%3D=0
>>>>
>>>
>>> Feedback welcome.  Looks like it might be more than 10 minutes, but it
>>>was
>>> an interesting look through what Royale can and can't do.
>>>
>>> A few things I thought of:
>>> -DataGrid in Express should probably default to using percentage column
>>> sizes.  Then the apps will be "responsive" by default.
>>> -If DataGrid could handle plain Array, it would save a few lines in the
>>> tutorial.
>>> -Should this example look better out of the box?  Different borders or
>>> something like that?
>>>
>>> Other than responding to feedback on the tutorial, I am going to fill
>>>out
>>> the application-structure page then move on to ASDoc.  So folks are
>>>free
>>> to just make changes to the .md files to improve the tutorial.  I think
>>> that may close out my week.  If I can make ASDoc work a little better
>>>and
>>> the tutorial is "ok" (not necessarily great or perfect), it might be a
>>> good time to cut another release early next week.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/26/18, 12:32 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On 1/26/18, 11:43 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>I don't think we need to build out the full ToC up front, rather than
>>> >>PAYG
>>> >>haha. There are tons of pages that I have not yet listed in the
>>>Google
>>> >>doc,
>>> >>and several decisions we have to make.
>>> >>
>>> >>For example, we have an Express set of controls and MDL and who knows
>>> >>what
>>> >>else. I presume we need to explain how these various sets of controls
>>> >>relate to each other...
>>> >
>>> >Yes, and it also occurred to me that

RE: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Yishay Weiss]

This looks very promising. I’m going to read this in batches. Some feedback on 
‘The data model’.

repos = configurator.data.repos;
  projectName = configurator.data.projectName;

Shouldn’t these be cast to a String and an Array respectively?

Also, I find these lines a bit misleading




import org.apache.royale.events.Event;


Since some of the viewers will be first timers I think it’s important to put 
code in script blocks.

Also, related to the last comment can you make the full source for the example 
available somewhere?

Thanks.


From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:50 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for 
Royale help documentation)

Hi,

I've pushed what I will call a first draft of the main portion of a
tutorial for using Royale.

See:
http://apacheroyaleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/RoyaleDocs_Stagin
g/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/_site/create-an-application/application-tuto
rial.html

Feedback welcome.  Looks like it might be more than 10 minutes, but it was
an interesting look through what Royale can and can't do.

A few things I thought of:
-DataGrid in Express should probably default to using percentage column
sizes.  Then the apps will be "responsive" by default.
-If DataGrid could handle plain Array, it would save a few lines in the
tutorial.
-Should this example look better out of the box?  Different borders or
something like that?

Other than responding to feedback on the tutorial, I am going to fill out
the application-structure page then move on to ASDoc.  So folks are free
to just make changes to the .md files to improve the tutorial.  I think
that may close out my week.  If I can make ASDoc work a little better and
the tutorial is "ok" (not necessarily great or perfect), it might be a
good time to cut another release early next week.

Thoughts?
-Alex


On 1/26/18, 12:32 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:

>
>
>On 1/26/18, 11:43 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't think we need to build out the full ToC up front, rather than
>>PAYG
>>haha. There are tons of pages that I have not yet listed in the Google
>>doc,
>>and several decisions we have to make.
>>
>>For example, we have an Express set of controls and MDL and who knows
>>what
>>else. I presume we need to explain how these various sets of controls
>>relate to each other...
>
>Yes, and it also occurred to me that we need to discuss targets (SWF
>output and/or JS output) and how to manage that.  And keep in mind that
>someday there may be a third or fourth output.
>
>My 2 cents,
>-Alex
>>
>>On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> Responses in-line.
>>>
>>> On 1/26/18, 2:48 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Good morning.
>>> >
>>> >Least thing first: Does the Apache header absolutely need to be in
>>>short
>>> >lines with hard line breaks so it takes up so much vertical space in
>>>the
>>> >file? Please look at test-apache-header.md and see whether the header
>>> laid
>>> >out on fewer lines and trusting to line wrapping works.
>>>
>>> I don't know for sure.  There is a header scanning tool that we use and
>>>I
>>> just tried it and it didn't mind your reformatting, so that's good
>>>enough
>>> for me.
>>> >
>>> >I am fine with your suggestions about where "Hello, World" should be
>>>and
>>> >how "Developing an application" might play out. However, this does
>>>raise
>>> >the question of whether this sort of help-docs structure is going to
>>>have
>>> >an index or other means to locate concepts like "data binding" if it
>>>is
>>> >tucked down in a larger set of instructions about applications rather
>>>than
>>> >being a entry itself.
>>>
>>> IMO, the 10-minute tutorial won't go into any serious detail about data
>>> binding, so "data binding" would have its own section wherever it makes
>>> sense and a link to it from the tutorial.
>>> >
>>> >I think the doc structure is still highly fluid and that we need to
>>>either
>>> >hold off on the ToC until we are closer to alpha-release of the
>>> >documentation, or have a less-bulky ToC document. My rough estimate is
>>> >that

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Alex Harui]

I forgot to mention that the tutorial requires the nightly build.

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>


From: Alex Harui
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:49:58 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for 
Royale help documentation)

Hi,

I've pushed what I will call a first draft of the main portion of a
tutorial for using Royale.

See:
http://apacheroyaleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/RoyaleDocs_Stagin
g/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/_site/create-an-application/application-tuto
rial.html

Feedback welcome.  Looks like it might be more than 10 minutes, but it was
an interesting look through what Royale can and can't do.

A few things I thought of:
-DataGrid in Express should probably default to using percentage column
sizes.  Then the apps will be "responsive" by default.
-If DataGrid could handle plain Array, it would save a few lines in the
tutorial.
-Should this example look better out of the box?  Different borders or
something like that?

Other than responding to feedback on the tutorial, I am going to fill out
the application-structure page then move on to ASDoc.  So folks are free
to just make changes to the .md files to improve the tutorial.  I think
that may close out my week.  If I can make ASDoc work a little better and
the tutorial is "ok" (not necessarily great or perfect), it might be a
good time to cut another release early next week.

Thoughts?
-Alex


On 1/26/18, 12:32 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:

>
>
>On 1/26/18, 11:43 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't think we need to build out the full ToC up front, rather than
>>PAYG
>>haha. There are tons of pages that I have not yet listed in the Google
>>doc,
>>and several decisions we have to make.
>>
>>For example, we have an Express set of controls and MDL and who knows
>>what
>>else. I presume we need to explain how these various sets of controls
>>relate to each other...
>
>Yes, and it also occurred to me that we need to discuss targets (SWF
>output and/or JS output) and how to manage that.  And keep in mind that
>someday there may be a third or fourth output.
>
>My 2 cents,
>-Alex
>>
>>On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> Responses in-line.
>>>
>>> On 1/26/18, 2:48 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Good morning.
>>> >
>>> >Least thing first: Does the Apache header absolutely need to be in
>>>short
>>> >lines with hard line breaks so it takes up so much vertical space in
>>>the
>>> >file? Please look at test-apache-header.md and see whether the header
>>> laid
>>> >out on fewer lines and trusting to line wrapping works.
>>>
>>> I don't know for sure.  There is a header scanning tool that we use and
>>>I
>>> just tried it and it didn't mind your reformatting, so that's good
>>>enough
>>> for me.
>>> >
>>> >I am fine with your suggestions about where "Hello, World" should be
>>>and
>>> >how "Developing an application" might play out. However, this does
>>>raise
>>> >the question of whether this sort of help-docs structure is going to
>>>have
>>> >an index or other means to locate concepts like "data binding" if it
>>>is
>>> >tucked down in a larger set of instructions about applications rather
>>>than
>>> >being a entry itself.
>>>
>>> IMO, the 10-minute tutorial won't go into any serious detail about data
>>> binding, so "data binding" would have its own section wherever it makes
>>> sense and a link to it from the tutorial.
>>> >
>>> >I think the doc structure is still highly fluid and that we need to
>>>either
>>> >hold off on the ToC until we are closer to alpha-release of the
>>> >documentation, or have a less-bulky ToC document. My rough estimate is
>>> >that
>>> >we have stubs for less than 10% of the pages we will eventually have.
>>>
>>> IMO, the toc.json is relatively compact and much easier to change.  I'm
>>> not sure how to make it any smaller.  I could probably sit down and
>>>crank
>>> out all of the missing stubs in an evening, but is it worth it?  I like
>>> the fact that entries don't show up until we create a page for them.
>>>
>

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Alex Harui]

Hi,

I've pushed what I will call a first draft of the main portion of a
tutorial for using Royale.

See: 
http://apacheroyaleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/RoyaleDocs_Stagin
g/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/_site/create-an-application/application-tuto
rial.html

Feedback welcome.  Looks like it might be more than 10 minutes, but it was
an interesting look through what Royale can and can't do.

A few things I thought of:
-DataGrid in Express should probably default to using percentage column
sizes.  Then the apps will be "responsive" by default.
-If DataGrid could handle plain Array, it would save a few lines in the
tutorial.
-Should this example look better out of the box?  Different borders or
something like that?

Other than responding to feedback on the tutorial, I am going to fill out
the application-structure page then move on to ASDoc.  So folks are free
to just make changes to the .md files to improve the tutorial.  I think
that may close out my week.  If I can make ASDoc work a little better and
the tutorial is "ok" (not necessarily great or perfect), it might be a
good time to cut another release early next week.

Thoughts?
-Alex


On 1/26/18, 12:32 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:

>
>
>On 1/26/18, 11:43 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
>
>>I don't think we need to build out the full ToC up front, rather than
>>PAYG
>>haha. There are tons of pages that I have not yet listed in the Google
>>doc,
>>and several decisions we have to make.
>>
>>For example, we have an Express set of controls and MDL and who knows
>>what
>>else. I presume we need to explain how these various sets of controls
>>relate to each other...
>
>Yes, and it also occurred to me that we need to discuss targets (SWF
>output and/or JS output) and how to manage that.  And keep in mind that
>someday there may be a third or fourth output.
>
>My 2 cents,
>-Alex
>>
>>On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Alex Harui 
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> Responses in-line.
>>>
>>> On 1/26/18, 2:48 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
>>>
>>> >Good morning.
>>> >
>>> >Least thing first: Does the Apache header absolutely need to be in
>>>short
>>> >lines with hard line breaks so it takes up so much vertical space in
>>>the
>>> >file? Please look at test-apache-header.md and see whether the header
>>> laid
>>> >out on fewer lines and trusting to line wrapping works.
>>>
>>> I don't know for sure.  There is a header scanning tool that we use and
>>>I
>>> just tried it and it didn't mind your reformatting, so that's good
>>>enough
>>> for me.
>>> >
>>> >I am fine with your suggestions about where "Hello, World" should be
>>>and
>>> >how "Developing an application" might play out. However, this does
>>>raise
>>> >the question of whether this sort of help-docs structure is going to
>>>have
>>> >an index or other means to locate concepts like "data binding" if it
>>>is
>>> >tucked down in a larger set of instructions about applications rather
>>>than
>>> >being a entry itself.
>>>
>>> IMO, the 10-minute tutorial won't go into any serious detail about data
>>> binding, so "data binding" would have its own section wherever it makes
>>> sense and a link to it from the tutorial.
>>> >
>>> >I think the doc structure is still highly fluid and that we need to
>>>either
>>> >hold off on the ToC until we are closer to alpha-release of the
>>> >documentation, or have a less-bulky ToC document. My rough estimate is
>>> >that
>>> >we have stubs for less than 10% of the pages we will eventually have.
>>>
>>> IMO, the toc.json is relatively compact and much easier to change.  I'm
>>> not sure how to make it any smaller.  I could probably sit down and
>>>crank
>>> out all of the missing stubs in an evening, but is it worth it?  I like
>>> the fact that entries don't show up until we create a page for them.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents,
>>> -Alex
>>> >
>>> >On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Alex Harui 
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Andrew,
>>> >>
>>> >> I took a quick peek at the Adobe doc.  I'm not sure "Development
>>>Phases"
>>> >> should be the first thing under "Create an application", especially
>>> >>given
>>> >> how the Adobe doc says that some of those sub-topics are not phases.
>>> >> Also, I think there is more than one way to develop an application.
>>> >>
>>> >> My temptation is to leave "Hello, World" as the end of the "Get
>>>Started"
>>> >> section.  Getting "Hello World" to work will prove that you have
>>> >>properly
>>> >> installed the SDK.  Then, I would like to suggest tweaking the
>>>"Create
>>> >>An
>>> >> Application" section to be where we build an app in 10 minutes.  I
>>>think
>>> >> we should start with "Application Structure"  I will discuss the MVC
>>> >> pattern there as an option.  Then the next section would be called
>>> >> something like "A (10 Minute) Tutorial" and the sub-topics will be
>>>major
>>> >> steps towards building an example 

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Alex Harui]

On 1/26/18, 11:43 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:

>I don't think we need to build out the full ToC up front, rather than PAYG
>haha. There are tons of pages that I have not yet listed in the Google
>doc,
>and several decisions we have to make.
>
>For example, we have an Express set of controls and MDL and who knows what
>else. I presume we need to explain how these various sets of controls
>relate to each other...

Yes, and it also occurred to me that we need to discuss targets (SWF
output and/or JS output) and how to manage that.  And keep in mind that
someday there may be a third or fourth output.

My 2 cents,
-Alex
>
>On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Alex Harui 
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Responses in-line.
>>
>> On 1/26/18, 2:48 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
>>
>> >Good morning.
>> >
>> >Least thing first: Does the Apache header absolutely need to be in
>>short
>> >lines with hard line breaks so it takes up so much vertical space in
>>the
>> >file? Please look at test-apache-header.md and see whether the header
>> laid
>> >out on fewer lines and trusting to line wrapping works.
>>
>> I don't know for sure.  There is a header scanning tool that we use and
>>I
>> just tried it and it didn't mind your reformatting, so that's good
>>enough
>> for me.
>> >
>> >I am fine with your suggestions about where "Hello, World" should be
>>and
>> >how "Developing an application" might play out. However, this does
>>raise
>> >the question of whether this sort of help-docs structure is going to
>>have
>> >an index or other means to locate concepts like "data binding" if it is
>> >tucked down in a larger set of instructions about applications rather
>>than
>> >being a entry itself.
>>
>> IMO, the 10-minute tutorial won't go into any serious detail about data
>> binding, so "data binding" would have its own section wherever it makes
>> sense and a link to it from the tutorial.
>> >
>> >I think the doc structure is still highly fluid and that we need to
>>either
>> >hold off on the ToC until we are closer to alpha-release of the
>> >documentation, or have a less-bulky ToC document. My rough estimate is
>> >that
>> >we have stubs for less than 10% of the pages we will eventually have.
>>
>> IMO, the toc.json is relatively compact and much easier to change.  I'm
>> not sure how to make it any smaller.  I could probably sit down and
>>crank
>> out all of the missing stubs in an evening, but is it worth it?  I like
>> the fact that entries don't show up until we create a page for them.
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> -Alex
>> >
>> >On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Alex Harui 
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> I took a quick peek at the Adobe doc.  I'm not sure "Development
>>Phases"
>> >> should be the first thing under "Create an application", especially
>> >>given
>> >> how the Adobe doc says that some of those sub-topics are not phases.
>> >> Also, I think there is more than one way to develop an application.
>> >>
>> >> My temptation is to leave "Hello, World" as the end of the "Get
>>Started"
>> >> section.  Getting "Hello World" to work will prove that you have
>> >>properly
>> >> installed the SDK.  Then, I would like to suggest tweaking the
>>"Create
>> >>An
>> >> Application" section to be where we build an app in 10 minutes.  I
>>think
>> >> we should start with "Application Structure"  I will discuss the MVC
>> >> pattern there as an option.  Then the next section would be called
>> >> something like "A (10 Minute) Tutorial" and the sub-topics will be
>>major
>> >> steps towards building an example app.  It will take you through
>> >>building
>> >> the UI, network access, maybe data-binding, and it will address
>> >>building,
>> >> debugging, and deploying the example.  It will pick up enough of the
>> >> development phase information that I don't think we'll need a
>>separate
>> >> section for it.
>> >>
>> >> I'm shutting down for tonight so I'll see what your thoughts are
>>when I
>> >> get going again.  I could also draft my version in a branch if you
>>don't
>> >> want to mess with the develop branch right now.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >>
>> >--
>> >Andrew Wetmore
>> >
>> 
>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage1
>>>4
>> .
>> >blogspot.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> 7Cfc7c34f4df27449408cf08
>> >d564aa6bd1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> 7C636525605481253150
>> >=gbSwjy2OMLy72u6Jna41ySDuPFO0K5tsjEV7ZZLnEo4%3D=0
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Andrew Wetmore
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14.
>blogspot.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccd4e8ea7ad2844405a7908
>d564f50ec9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636525926034660177
>=QZrNY2%2BwdrY%2FZ48rnKTpAN79N9g7q%2Bn%2BvmQPsHvrrSc%3D=0

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Andrew Wetmore]

I don't think we need to build out the full ToC up front, rather than PAYG
haha. There are tons of pages that I have not yet listed in the Google doc,
and several decisions we have to make.

For example, we have an Express set of controls and MDL and who knows what
else. I presume we need to explain how these various sets of controls
relate to each other...

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Responses in-line.
>
> On 1/26/18, 2:48 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:
>
> >Good morning.
> >
> >Least thing first: Does the Apache header absolutely need to be in short
> >lines with hard line breaks so it takes up so much vertical space in the
> >file? Please look at test-apache-header.md and see whether the header
> laid
> >out on fewer lines and trusting to line wrapping works.
>
> I don't know for sure.  There is a header scanning tool that we use and I
> just tried it and it didn't mind your reformatting, so that's good enough
> for me.
> >
> >I am fine with your suggestions about where "Hello, World" should be and
> >how "Developing an application" might play out. However, this does raise
> >the question of whether this sort of help-docs structure is going to have
> >an index or other means to locate concepts like "data binding" if it is
> >tucked down in a larger set of instructions about applications rather than
> >being a entry itself.
>
> IMO, the 10-minute tutorial won't go into any serious detail about data
> binding, so "data binding" would have its own section wherever it makes
> sense and a link to it from the tutorial.
> >
> >I think the doc structure is still highly fluid and that we need to either
> >hold off on the ToC until we are closer to alpha-release of the
> >documentation, or have a less-bulky ToC document. My rough estimate is
> >that
> >we have stubs for less than 10% of the pages we will eventually have.
>
> IMO, the toc.json is relatively compact and much easier to change.  I'm
> not sure how to make it any smaller.  I could probably sit down and crank
> out all of the missing stubs in an evening, but is it worth it?  I like
> the fact that entries don't show up until we create a page for them.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
> >
> >On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Alex Harui 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> I took a quick peek at the Adobe doc.  I'm not sure "Development Phases"
> >> should be the first thing under "Create an application", especially
> >>given
> >> how the Adobe doc says that some of those sub-topics are not phases.
> >> Also, I think there is more than one way to develop an application.
> >>
> >> My temptation is to leave "Hello, World" as the end of the "Get Started"
> >> section.  Getting "Hello World" to work will prove that you have
> >>properly
> >> installed the SDK.  Then, I would like to suggest tweaking the "Create
> >>An
> >> Application" section to be where we build an app in 10 minutes.  I think
> >> we should start with "Application Structure"  I will discuss the MVC
> >> pattern there as an option.  Then the next section would be called
> >> something like "A (10 Minute) Tutorial" and the sub-topics will be major
> >> steps towards building an example app.  It will take you through
> >>building
> >> the UI, network access, maybe data-binding, and it will address
> >>building,
> >> debugging, and deploying the example.  It will pick up enough of the
> >> development phase information that I don't think we'll need a separate
> >> section for it.
> >>
> >> I'm shutting down for tonight so I'll see what your thoughts are when I
> >> get going again.  I could also draft my version in a branch if you don't
> >> want to mess with the develop branch right now.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >>
> >--
> >Andrew Wetmore
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14
> .
> >blogspot.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Cfc7c34f4df27449408cf08
> >d564aa6bd1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636525605481253150
> >=gbSwjy2OMLy72u6Jna41ySDuPFO0K5tsjEV7ZZLnEo4%3D=0
>
>


-- 
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Alex Harui]

Hi Andrew,

Responses in-line.

On 1/26/18, 2:48 AM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:

>Good morning.
>
>Least thing first: Does the Apache header absolutely need to be in short
>lines with hard line breaks so it takes up so much vertical space in the
>file? Please look at test-apache-header.md and see whether the header laid
>out on fewer lines and trusting to line wrapping works.

I don't know for sure.  There is a header scanning tool that we use and I
just tried it and it didn't mind your reformatting, so that's good enough
for me.
>
>I am fine with your suggestions about where "Hello, World" should be and
>how "Developing an application" might play out. However, this does raise
>the question of whether this sort of help-docs structure is going to have
>an index or other means to locate concepts like "data binding" if it is
>tucked down in a larger set of instructions about applications rather than
>being a entry itself.

IMO, the 10-minute tutorial won't go into any serious detail about data
binding, so "data binding" would have its own section wherever it makes
sense and a link to it from the tutorial.
>
>I think the doc structure is still highly fluid and that we need to either
>hold off on the ToC until we are closer to alpha-release of the
>documentation, or have a less-bulky ToC document. My rough estimate is
>that
>we have stubs for less than 10% of the pages we will eventually have.

IMO, the toc.json is relatively compact and much easier to change.  I'm
not sure how to make it any smaller.  I could probably sit down and crank
out all of the missing stubs in an evening, but is it worth it?  I like
the fact that entries don't show up until we create a page for them.

My 2 cents,
-Alex
>
>On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Alex Harui 
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> I took a quick peek at the Adobe doc.  I'm not sure "Development Phases"
>> should be the first thing under "Create an application", especially
>>given
>> how the Adobe doc says that some of those sub-topics are not phases.
>> Also, I think there is more than one way to develop an application.
>>
>> My temptation is to leave "Hello, World" as the end of the "Get Started"
>> section.  Getting "Hello World" to work will prove that you have
>>properly
>> installed the SDK.  Then, I would like to suggest tweaking the "Create
>>An
>> Application" section to be where we build an app in 10 minutes.  I think
>> we should start with "Application Structure"  I will discuss the MVC
>> pattern there as an option.  Then the next section would be called
>> something like "A (10 Minute) Tutorial" and the sub-topics will be major
>> steps towards building an example app.  It will take you through
>>building
>> the UI, network access, maybe data-binding, and it will address
>>building,
>> debugging, and deploying the example.  It will pick up enough of the
>> development phase information that I don't think we'll need a separate
>> section for it.
>>
>> I'm shutting down for tonight so I'll see what your thoughts are when I
>> get going again.  I could also draft my version in a branch if you don't
>> want to mess with the develop branch right now.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>-- 
>Andrew Wetmore
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14.
>blogspot.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfc7c34f4df27449408cf08
>d564aa6bd1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636525605481253150
>=gbSwjy2OMLy72u6Jna41ySDuPFO0K5tsjEV7ZZLnEo4%3D=0

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Andrew Wetmore]

Good morning.

Least thing first: Does the Apache header absolutely need to be in short
lines with hard line breaks so it takes up so much vertical space in the
file? Please look at test-apache-header.md and see whether the header laid
out on fewer lines and trusting to line wrapping works.

I am fine with your suggestions about where "Hello, World" should be and
how "Developing an application" might play out. However, this does raise
the question of whether this sort of help-docs structure is going to have
an index or other means to locate concepts like "data binding" if it is
tucked down in a larger set of instructions about applications rather than
being a entry itself.

I think the doc structure is still highly fluid and that we need to either
hold off on the ToC until we are closer to alpha-release of the
documentation, or have a less-bulky ToC document. My rough estimate is that
we have stubs for less than 10% of the pages we will eventually have.

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> I took a quick peek at the Adobe doc.  I'm not sure "Development Phases"
> should be the first thing under "Create an application", especially given
> how the Adobe doc says that some of those sub-topics are not phases.
> Also, I think there is more than one way to develop an application.
>
> My temptation is to leave "Hello, World" as the end of the "Get Started"
> section.  Getting "Hello World" to work will prove that you have properly
> installed the SDK.  Then, I would like to suggest tweaking the "Create An
> Application" section to be where we build an app in 10 minutes.  I think
> we should start with "Application Structure"  I will discuss the MVC
> pattern there as an option.  Then the next section would be called
> something like "A (10 Minute) Tutorial" and the sub-topics will be major
> steps towards building an example app.  It will take you through building
> the UI, network access, maybe data-binding, and it will address building,
> debugging, and deploying the example.  It will pick up enough of the
> development phase information that I don't think we'll need a separate
> section for it.
>
> I'm shutting down for tonight so I'll see what your thoughts are when I
> get going again.  I could also draft my version in a branch if you don't
> want to mess with the develop branch right now.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
>
-- 
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Alex Harui]

Hi Andrew,

I took a quick peek at the Adobe doc.  I'm not sure "Development Phases"
should be the first thing under "Create an application", especially given
how the Adobe doc says that some of those sub-topics are not phases.
Also, I think there is more than one way to develop an application.

My temptation is to leave "Hello, World" as the end of the "Get Started"
section.  Getting "Hello World" to work will prove that you have properly
installed the SDK.  Then, I would like to suggest tweaking the "Create An
Application" section to be where we build an app in 10 minutes.  I think
we should start with "Application Structure"  I will discuss the MVC
pattern there as an option.  Then the next section would be called
something like "A (10 Minute) Tutorial" and the sub-topics will be major
steps towards building an example app.  It will take you through building
the UI, network access, maybe data-binding, and it will address building,
debugging, and deploying the example.  It will pick up enough of the
development phase information that I don't think we'll need a separate
section for it.

I'm shutting down for tonight so I'll see what your thoughts are when I
get going again.  I could also draft my version in a branch if you don't
want to mess with the develop branch right now.

Thoughts?
-Alex

On 1/25/18, 4:07 PM, "Andrew Wetmore"  wrote:

>Hi:
>
>I think the "Royale in 10 Minutes" goes where the ToC "Hello, World!" is
>in
>the "Get Started" section. I saw the "Create an Application" section as
>what you would turn to when you had gone through building a first little
>application and decided, yes, maybe this Royale is the thing I need for
>what I want to build.
>
>I took the "application lifecycle" lineup from the old Adobe Flex help doc
>structure [1] section "Application Architecture / Application development
>phases". Of course, the under-the-hood tick-tock of what happens in a
>Royale app when you run it is equally valuable, but different. Feel free
>to
>use "Application Lifecycle" to describe what you want to write about, and
>we can change the top title for my stack to something like "Application
>development phases", as you suggest.
>
>Each night I wake up at least once thinking something like, "Oh, I forgot
>an entry for Events!" The ToC is far from complete!
>
>I have added the info about the Apache header in README.md, which I take
>to
>be the place where documentation contributors would look for guidance.
>Just
>pick a time and let me know and I will be out of the way for your sweep
>through the existing files. I am in Nova Scotia in Canada, four hours
>ahead
>of you if you are on the West Coast.
>
>a
>
>
>[1] 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.adob
>e.com%2Fen_US%2Fflex%2Fusing%2Findex.html=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.co
>m%7Cadede60163a34be4055d08d56450c920%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C
>0%7C0%7C636525220508068194=oQoLgTo6SzY9yZONTU7VFB7Ldy8i2bwNctmMmAjrn
>%2B4%3D=0
>
>
>On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Alex Harui 
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> So I just pushed more stubs for the Create An Application section.  As I
>> was doing so, I started thinking that what you expect in that section is
>> different from what I'm interested in working on.  It isn't that we
>>don't
>> need that section, but it appears that you want to address application
>> development as a general topic, discussing the design phase, and
>> maintenance phases, etc.
>>
>> What I want to write is a "Royale in 10 minutes".  Sort of a tutorial
>>for
>> building something more than a Hello World, and discuss some
>> "under-the-hood" things like how the app starts up, how you know the app
>> is ready, calling a web service, stuff like that.  If you agree we want
>> such a thing, where would it go?
>>
>> Also, we have to be a bit careful about terminology.  The reason I
>> initially thought that I would do the "Royale in 10 minutes" in the
>> "Create an Application" section is because one subsection is titled
>> "Application Lifecycle".  To me, that meant the under-the-hood lifecycle
>> of an application like what its entry point is, what gets initialized
>> first, etc.  I'm tempted to rename the current "Application Lifecycle"
>>to
>> "Application Development Phases" so I can use "Lifecycle" for the
>> under-the-hood section.  Or is there a better name for how an
>>application
>> starts up?
>>
>> I'm going to go spend some time on ASDoc while we figure this out.
>>
>> Also, at some point, we should sweep through all of the files and add
>>the
>> Apache header to them.  I did it in "Create an Application.md" to make
>> sure it didn't pollute the output.  I didn't do the sweep now since I
>> didn't know if you have files under edit.  I'm not sure what hours you
>>are
>> working on this, so we should just pick a time where we have everything
>> committed and do a sweep.  I could do it on my Sunday night on the US
>>west
>> coast.
>>
>> 

Re: Royale in 10 minutes (was Re: Proposed table of contents for Royale help documentation)

[Andrew Wetmore]

Hi:

I think the "Royale in 10 Minutes" goes where the ToC "Hello, World!" is in
the "Get Started" section. I saw the "Create an Application" section as
what you would turn to when you had gone through building a first little
application and decided, yes, maybe this Royale is the thing I need for
what I want to build.

I took the "application lifecycle" lineup from the old Adobe Flex help doc
structure [1] section "Application Architecture / Application development
phases". Of course, the under-the-hood tick-tock of what happens in a
Royale app when you run it is equally valuable, but different. Feel free to
use "Application Lifecycle" to describe what you want to write about, and
we can change the top title for my stack to something like "Application
development phases", as you suggest.

Each night I wake up at least once thinking something like, "Oh, I forgot
an entry for Events!" The ToC is far from complete!

I have added the info about the Apache header in README.md, which I take to
be the place where documentation contributors would look for guidance. Just
pick a time and let me know and I will be out of the way for your sweep
through the existing files. I am in Nova Scotia in Canada, four hours ahead
of you if you are on the West Coast.

a


[1] https://help.adobe.com/en_US/flex/using/index.html


On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> So I just pushed more stubs for the Create An Application section.  As I
> was doing so, I started thinking that what you expect in that section is
> different from what I'm interested in working on.  It isn't that we don't
> need that section, but it appears that you want to address application
> development as a general topic, discussing the design phase, and
> maintenance phases, etc.
>
> What I want to write is a "Royale in 10 minutes".  Sort of a tutorial for
> building something more than a Hello World, and discuss some
> "under-the-hood" things like how the app starts up, how you know the app
> is ready, calling a web service, stuff like that.  If you agree we want
> such a thing, where would it go?
>
> Also, we have to be a bit careful about terminology.  The reason I
> initially thought that I would do the "Royale in 10 minutes" in the
> "Create an Application" section is because one subsection is titled
> "Application Lifecycle".  To me, that meant the under-the-hood lifecycle
> of an application like what its entry point is, what gets initialized
> first, etc.  I'm tempted to rename the current "Application Lifecycle" to
> "Application Development Phases" so I can use "Lifecycle" for the
> under-the-hood section.  Or is there a better name for how an application
> starts up?
>
> I'm going to go spend some time on ASDoc while we figure this out.
>
> Also, at some point, we should sweep through all of the files and add the
> Apache header to them.  I did it in "Create an Application.md" to make
> sure it didn't pollute the output.  I didn't do the sweep now since I
> didn't know if you have files under edit.  I'm not sure what hours you are
> working on this, so we should just pick a time where we have everything
> committed and do a sweep.  I could do it on my Sunday night on the US west
> coast.
>
> Thoughts?
> Alex
>
> --
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/