> I would really like to see Archetypes docs developed seperately in its
> own world, we don't cover all the code behind Plone like the CMF or Zop=
> for example. Its such a deep subject that it takes up a lot of time. Th=
> Plone docs would touch on it as needed and refer people over to the
> Archetypes docs, rather like we do for DCWorkflow.
> I don't know if Maik has an opinion here, he being somewhat in charge f
> development docs.
Thanks, Andy. I agree that Archetypes is a sub-project of Plone, and=20
that for the moment documentation can happily reside somewhere else.
FYI: I have been working in the background for quite a while now, trying=20
to catch up with Plone development.
I am currently preparing my presentation about Plone from a programmer=20
perspective for EuroPython.
"The goal of this talk is to present a bird's-eye view of the Plone=20
programming landscape using UML Models. Both Plone 1.1 itself, and the=20
evolution from Plone 1.0 to Plone 1.1 will be illustrated so that=20
developers gain a clear insight into the current state of Plone and=20
where it is heading."
Besides preparing the talk, I want to get Interface documentation into
the developer section:
I am currently focusing on documenting Plone 1.1 and CMF 1.4. My=20
personal goal is to have the developer documentation for Plone
1.1 ready at the time that Plone 1.1 is released. This includes
full UML and Interface documentation as well as a description of
all changes that a developer has to know about in the move from
Plone 1.0 to Plone 1.1.
I could use some help to get the (existing)Interface documentation into=20
the Wiki, so any volunteers please send me an email.