Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: draft proposal for docs improvement #3164

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

docs: draft proposal for docs improvement #3164

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

dhmlau
Copy link
Member

@dhmlau dhmlau commented Jun 14, 2019

Based on @raymondfeng's draft #2925, the purpose of this PR is to create a concrete plan on what we should do at a high level and for each section.

The goal is that we can create smaller tasks out of this proposal.

@dhmlau
Copy link
Member Author

dhmlau commented Jun 14, 2019

@strongloop/loopback-maintainers, I'd like to get your feedback on how we categorize our docs at a higher level first and the naming. Thanks.

@dhmlau dhmlau self-assigned this Jun 18, 2019
@dhmlau dhmlau added the Docs label Jun 18, 2019
- **Getting Started**: no change. [Getting-started.md](Getting-started.md)
- **Tutorials**: [Tutorials.md](Tutorials.md).

- **Basic constructs**: Same as
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe keeping Key Concepts

- Extension point/extension
- Discovering and ordering
- Chain of handling

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

At the moment, we have the following sections in Extending LoopBack:

Screen Shot 2019-06-24 at 09 27 26

What's the plan - are we going to preserve them unchanged?

From my point of view, I feel it's important to provide good documentation for extension developers, showing them best practices for building npm modules providing reusable functionality for LB4 applications.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added them under "Extending LoopBack". Thanks.

Copy link
Member

@bajtos bajtos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.


Question: I have trouble mapping the following contents. Please help:

- Serving static files ??
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should go under Usage scenario.

Question: I have trouble mapping the following contents. Please help:

- Serving static files ??
- Self-hosted REST API Explorer -> Under "Extending LoopBack"?- Boot and Mount a
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should go under Create APIs.

- Serving static files ??
- Self-hosted REST API Explorer -> Under "Extending LoopBack"?- Boot and Mount a
LoopBack 3 Application -> Under "For LoopBack 3.x users"?
- Remove "Crafting LoopBack 4"??
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can have an Architecture section, including Behind the scene

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've renamed the behind the scene to architecture now.

Copy link
Contributor

@b-admike b-admike left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The proposal looks great so far.

@dhmlau
Copy link
Member Author

dhmlau commented Jun 23, 2020

Closing this PR as some has turned into GH issues, and another round of improvement is led by Miroslav.

@dhmlau dhmlau closed this Jun 23, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants