[aerogear-dev] Website restructure

[Erik Jan de Wit]

> I think the original idea was to have a common text. I think we could have common part for exemple:
> http://aerogear.org/docs/guides/aerogear-android/AerogearAndroidPipes101/
> http://aerogear.org/docs/guides/iOSCookbook/  (section on pipe)
> http://aerogear.org/docs/guides/GetStartedAeroGearJS.html (section Pipeline & Pipes)
> all defined Pipe and pipeline, they could have a common part but of course this will involve some serious documentation refactoring.

Yeah, that was my take on it as well, and because we explain how to use these things in only one document with some platform specific parts it will also be a place to verify that our api’s are close to one another.

> 
> => first task make common smaller pages
> 
> However, we still need platform specific text. In all the previous exemple we give code snippet + code explantion. We could extend the tab to include text + sample.

+1 if there is a need for that that is very do-able

> 
> What will be nice to have as a POC is also:
> - the main documentation page with the 3 features section: Core/Push/Security 

Okay that is one thing I wasn’t certain on, that will mean restructure of the site to create these sections based on ‘functionality’ instead of platform. Does that mean you want to move away from the per platform split, or does it mean that you want to keep both?

> I’ll fork your branch and try to see how we can refactor documentation and give you more concrete feedbacks shortly. 
> For the menu color I guess the best person to help is Hylke.
> 

K, have a closer look and I’ll wait in the mean time Hylke do you have some ideas for keeping the menu or maybe integrating it differently?

> ++
> Corinne
> 
> 
> On 20 Jan 2014, at 12:44, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Looks good!
>> +1 I like the dracula theme !  
>> 
>> Apart for platform related code (JavaScript, Objective-C, Java), are there any
>> plans to support platform related text?
>> 
>> E.g. pipes on Aerogear can be used within FragmentActivity, which is valid for
>> Android only; Javadoc is not related to iOS, etc. That's basically a merge of
>> our guides into a one per feature with information covering all the platforms.
>> 
>> Which brings me to and idea of global platform switch. User/reader can switch
>> platform once and all code snippets and platform related blocks are
>> automatically selected. Can also be session based and affect all pages user
>> visits.
>> 
>> +1 , that would be really cool. I came accross such a layout on https://www.paymill.com/fr-fr/documentation/reference/api-reference/#document-authentication , check on the right, you have a tab where you can switch between different languages, the snippet is updated.
>> 
>> There are also some online apps that does the job for you like apiary.io and  https://www.mashape.com
>> 
>> Karel
>> 
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:37:28 +0100
>> Erik Jan de Wit <edewit at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> What I get from this thread is that we like the colour section idea, but we
>>> don’t want to re structure the entire site. So what we need to discuss is how
>>> are we going to use these sections if we don’t restructure. What I like about
>>> them is that it emphasises that our API’s are similar for all platforms and
>>> that we only have one document explaining for instance what pipes are. But
>>> the menu, doesn’t fit into this new colour scheme, so we need some decisions
>>> about how we are going to move forward.
>>> 
>>> Based on the work Corinne did with the introduction of sass I’ve had a go at
>>> implementing a bit what Hylke proposed, have a look at my sass branch
>>> https://github.com/edewit/aerogear.org/tree/saas and the page I’ve updated
>>> http://localhost:4000/docs/guides/aerogear-android/AerogearAndroidPipes101/
>>> to be in section layout. Don’t look at the header and footer as I haven’t
>>> changed those.
>>> 
>>> There are a couple of things that I don’t like about the current
>>> implementation, to enable the code blocks I’ve added some html into the
>>> asciidoc and some jquery magic in the layout. Maybe we could make this better
>>> by chaining the rendering/backend or by introducing some sort of plugin into
>>> asciidoc? Other then that, I’m sure Hylke sees a lot of things that are still
>>> off, but it’s a start.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>>      Erik Jan
>>> 
>>> p.s
>>> example picture https://www.dropbox.com/s/qtc4g0xwnyi0p41/Example.tiff
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev