Community
Participate
Working Groups
The javadoc states: * Will also return <code>null</code> if the view descriptor exists, but * fails the Expressions check. This is really out of context as nobody really knows what "expressions" means in this context. Is this related to the authorization story? Javadoc should really be improved to link to the related topics.
(In reply to comment #0) > This is really out of context as nobody really knows what "expressions" means There you touched a sore spot which already goes the whole time through my head, whenever it comes to explanations about expression enabled activities. What are they? How are they implemented? Is there an example? The problem is that this really needs a wide and complete explanation. There should be some central point in documentation where the whole "story" is explained completely in detail: - Give the element (a view for example) an id. - Make a good activity pattern which points to this element and optionally to additionally elements of the same group. - Make an activity which points to the activity pattern. - How to add a good expression to the activity: Should it be a property-tester, or variable dependent, concatenated maybe with other variables? And there are so many internal variables which are already provided by default from Eclipse. Maybe the list of them should be included. What's important: a complete explanation. Not a short explanation with a few links which point to other links with short explanations and further links. There's the _complete_ image missing. Look at Bug 201052, comment 157: the best advice for the question: "is there any description on how to use this new feature?" is the next comment: "Have a look at [external webaddress]." I don't think this is right. The documentation should be inside Eclipse. What do you think? How and where should this be provided? I would like to write a complete short explanation, but where should it be inserted? It should be a central independent explanation point where every javadoc points to. It could be added to the activities plugin definition, but I think such a long explanation doesn't fit there, and also it's xml and not javadoc. But I don't know any other, better fitting point. Any advices, ideas?
What about the help? Just an idea - don't know what platform team thinks about this.
Yes, the help plugin org.eclipse.platform.doc.isv would be a good place for this information. Jan, do you want to provide a first cut of this as a patch?
(In reply to comment #3) > Yes, the help plugin org.eclipse.platform.doc.isv would be a good place for > this information. Jan, do you want to provide a first cut of this as a patch? OK, I will look at this and provide a patch.
Created attachment 100978 [details] Update of the help for activities Update for the help page for activities. Sorry for being late. Almost forgot the bug entry.
Never too late for doc.
Created attachment 101973 [details] Tiny update of the javadoc documentation of IViewRegistry This is an additional tiny update of the IViewRegistry javadoc documentation.
Too many last-minute things happened in RC3. We still have time in RC4 for documentation.
I counted 84 new lines of documentation.
(In reply to comment #9) > I counted 84 new lines of documentation. I know the documentation isn't really detailed, but for a first step it's better than the current state: *nothing*. Some of the regular Eclipse doc writers should expand it later.
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > I counted 84 new lines of documentation. > > I know the documentation isn't really detailed, but for a first step it's > better than the current state: *nothing*. Some of the regular Eclipse doc > writers should expand it later. > I dont think he was criticizing you, merely pointing out the line count to illustrate that we don't need to go through ipzilla to get the contribution approved.
(In reply to comment #11) > I dont think he was criticizing you, merely pointing out the line count to > illustrate that we don't need to go through ipzilla to get the contribution > approved. However, I just meant this should be expanded later, but for now it's OK. (And I didn't know what "84" meant, so I wanted to make it clearer.)
I went over Jan's added text and made some more changes. Released to HEAD. For IViewRegistry, I tried to clarify the JavaDoc but did not use Jan's patch.
