Re: [Fwd: [Pydispatcher-devel] Documentation?]

[Mike C. F. <mcf...@ro...>]

Patrick K. O'Brien wrote:

>On Tuesday 01 July 2003 08:56 am, Mike C. Fletcher wrote:
>  
>
>>We don't currently have any documentation for using dispatcher.  Would
>>be nice to get something put together for the home page + docs
>>directory.  There is a placeholder in the docs directory of the dispatch
>>project at the moment.
>>    
>>
>
>I prefer reST for documentation, or wiki pages.  I've got a wiki site that we 
>can use, if we want.
>
I'd like to include documentation in the distribution.  Never used reST, 
I tend to write directly in basic HTML w/ class properties and use CSS 
to present it.  That works fine for me, and produces good-looking 
documentation, but I'm certainly open to someone else writing the docs 
in reST ;) , as a last resort, I'll learn reST, but I'm not really 
thrilled with the format.  Wiki is cool for enhancing a basic 
documentation set, but I'm thinking here of "basic usage" and reference 
docs, the kind of things you really want to have available whereever the 
package gets installed.

>>Note that there is a problem with SourceForge's file upload which makes
>>it a royal pain to update the website, I will do so when we have a
>>"presentable" site, but I'm not particularly interested in updating it
>>for every minor change.
>>    
>>
>
>We could also just point to a section of my website (www.orbtech.com) where we 
>can put pages for this.
>
If I'm working on the site, I'd rather use the SF server, I've got batch 
files that allow me to automatically update the website directly via scp 
(once SF gets itself fixed).  Probably easier than giving me an account 
on orbtech.

>>Also integrated the changes I could see in the dispatcher module of the
>>event package into the dispatcher module of the dispatch package.  I
>>don't have any unit tests to check those effects, however, so this is
>>really just "it didn't appear to break anything", rather than a robust
>>integration effort.
>>    
>>
>
>I've always felt bad that there aren't unit tests for this thing, so this is 
>just another reason to make them a priority.  So little time, so many things 
>to test.
>
The current test suite is really quite minimal (I think there's only 
about 15 tests), they just test basic functionality of the 3 modules, no 
failure-case tests, no real stress tests, there's lots of room for 
improvement.

BTW, no need to copy me on posts, I'm subscribed to the dev list.

Have fun,
Mike

_______________________________________
  Mike C. Fletcher
  Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
  http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/