|
|
|
|
| Re: JavaScript documentation [message #543235 is a reply to message #543089] |
Mon, 28 June 2010 17:57   |
|
Stefan is right, we cannot guarantee that we stay with the current
version and subset of qooxdoo. Since we strive for making the client as
lightweight and fast as possible, we can only use qx code that is really
needed for RWT.
However, we see that custom widget developers need a reliable interface
and therefore we already discussed to establish a minimal API for custom
widgets on the client.
Regards, Ralf
Stefan Roeck wrote:
> Good idea - I fully agree. However, the question is if the qx-API is
> really a public API (with the same restrictions as the Java API
> regarding compatibility). AFAIK, all JS-API is considered as internal -
> right?
>
> Regards,
> Stefan.
>
> Philipp Leusmann schrieb:
>> Thanks, Ralf.
>> Wouldn't it be possible to integrate all a RAP-Javascript-Classes in
>> such an API-Documentation? Ain't there a script which generates the
>> qooxdoo api docs?
>>
>> Would be really useful.
>>
|
|
|
| Re: JavaScript documentation [message #543245 is a reply to message #543235] |
Mon, 28 June 2010 19:03 |
 Philipp Leusmann
Messages: 36
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Since RAP only uses a subset of qooxdoo, it is even more important to
provide an API-Doc on what is available for widget developer.
I guess, qooxdoo is using some kind of JavaDoc-like annotations to
compile the API-dok, so probably it wouldn't be too hard to create a
RAP-ApiDoc containing all the docs from the qooxdoo subset and also from
the RAP classes.
Is anybody from the qooxdoo-team reading this thread and may provide any
additional information on how the APIdocs are compiled?
Regard,
Philipp
Am 28.06.10 19:57, schrieb Ralf Sternberg:
> Stefan is right, we cannot guarantee that we stay with the current
> version and subset of qooxdoo. Since we strive for making the client as
> lightweight and fast as possible, we can only use qx code that is really
> needed for RWT.
>
> However, we see that custom widget developers need a reliable interface
> and therefore we already discussed to establish a minimal API for custom
> widgets on the client.
>
>
> Regards, Ralf
>
>
> Stefan Roeck wrote:
>> Good idea - I fully agree. However, the question is if the qx-API is
>> really a public API (with the same restrictions as the Java API
>> regarding compatibility). AFAIK, all JS-API is considered as internal -
>> right?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stefan.
>>
>> Philipp Leusmann schrieb:
>>> Thanks, Ralf.
>>> Wouldn't it be possible to integrate all a RAP-Javascript-Classes in
>>> such an API-Documentation? Ain't there a script which generates the
>>> qooxdoo api docs?
>>>
>>> Would be really useful.
>>>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03088 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
