Community
Participate
Working Groups
I20090520-2000. We need to write ISV doc on how to contribute a simple Clean Up and a Save Action.
Created attachment 143868 [details] Patch
Please review the doc again regarding the used terms (e.g. you use "Writing a clean up options provider" but that's not a well known term) and spelling (e.g. upper vs. lowercase - there are several bugs in that area). In addition, please don't use code style in headings (most of the time you use the id just below, so there's no need to write/use it in the heading). When describing things say what needs to be done and why it needs to be done instead of writing "should ..." or "can...", e.g.: "The CleanUpRequirements can be obtained using the getRequirements() " is wrong. It should describe that and why this needs to be implemented. "with the example of a CopyrightsUpdate clean up which updates the copyrights for a file on save: " This is too complicated. Just write: "with the example of a clean up which updates the copyrights for a file on save: " Put the big junk of code for the preference UI into its own file and link to it.
Created attachment 144205 [details] Minor changes + UI code (In reply to comment #2) > Please review the doc again regarding the used terms (e.g. you use "Writing a > clean up options provider" but that's not a well known term) and spelling (e.g. > upper vs. lowercase - there are several bugs in that area). In addition, please > don't use code style in headings (most of the time you use the id just below, > so there's no need to write/use it in the heading). > I have changed it to "Contributing a clean up ..." . Does that qualify? > When describing things say what needs to be done and why it needs to be done > instead of writing "should ..." or "can...", e.g.: > "The CleanUpRequirements can be obtained using the getRequirements() " is > wrong. It should describe that and why this needs to be implemented. Done. > "with the example of a CopyrightsUpdate clean up which updates the copyrights > for a file on save: " > This is too complicated. Just write: > "with the example of a clean up which updates the copyrights for a file on > save: " Done. > > Put the big junk of code for the preference UI into its own file and link to > it. > Attached the CopyrightTabPage code.
> I have changed it to "Contributing a clean up ..." . Does that qualify? Yes. Better but not ready yet ;-) Please - add copyright notice to the CopyrightTabPage source file - keep the source file at the same location (it does not belong under 'reference') - as said before, there is too much code for CopyrightTabPage. It's now in its own file but most of it is duplicated in the main document. Please refer to the source file at the beginning of the "Contributing a clean up options initializer" paragraph and then only mention and explain the methods without posting any implementations. - remove fully qualified name from title
Created attachment 144647 [details] Patch with review changes.
Committed to HEAD and R3_5_maintenance with some minor tweaks.
Verified in M20090826-1100. In HEAD, I fixed the following problems (Raksha, please take a look): - This document is addressed to *implementers* that contribute to the extension points and implement the interfaces. Therefore it should also be written from a client perspective and explain what the implementer has to do, and not what the framework does with the implementation. - Fixed doctype and HTML errors due to bad tag nesting - Removed unused span tags and class attributes - Removed wrong whitespace (e.g. before a comma) and added colons
(In reply to comment #7) > Verified in M20090826-1100. > > In HEAD, I fixed the following problems (Raksha, please take a look): > > - This document is addressed to *implementers* that contribute to the extension > points and implement the interfaces. Therefore it should also be written from a > client perspective and explain what the implementer has to do, and not what the > framework does with the implementation. > > - Fixed doctype and HTML errors due to bad tag nesting > - Removed unused span tags and class attributes > - Removed wrong whitespace (e.g. before a comma) and added colons > Yep, I agree. Thanks for doing the changes Markus!
