On 8/2/16, 12:02 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi Alex, > > >I don't think we should make ASDocs an application. If we would, Google >could no longer index the online resources. Currently if I need info on >an API I search in google and it usually directs me to an Adobe page >where I can read it. Good point about indexing, but don't RIAs have ways of supporting Search Engines? > > >Another thing is, in the current ASDocs I remember some methods, classes, >properties being flagged as "Air" ... in case of FlexJS we would >additionally need "Flash" and "JavaScript" because all of this >conditional code. Yep, so lots of different dimensions of filtering are needed, IMO. > > >I'll check out if I can find some comment parsing code in falconjx, if >there is eventually I could use this ... I'll dig a little deeper ... and >I don't think having API documentation is a small fish ... I think it's >essential. Ok ... you could continue to use the old ASDoc but this just >makes things more complicated for new users (and existing ones) FalconJX doesn't "parse" the contents of the ASDoc it finds, but the ASDoc is kept around and a simple string search is done for @xxx. It occurs to me that externc does require the parsing of the "JSDoc". I think it might use code from Google Closure Compiler. I've never really thought about it, but I sort of assumed that the "grammar" for ASDoc and JSDoc and JavaDoc are the same, other than the @xxx keywords allowed. But that might not be true. IMO, we have a workaround to have ASDoc, so I'm not going to spend time on it, but we definitely need a volunteer to do it, so if that's you, go for it and good luck. Thanks, -Alex
