Actions API Wiki

I’ve started a Wiki on the ActionsForge to hold the API documentation.
Any registered member of ActionsForge may edit it or add comments to a
page. My hope is that this can be a much faster mammal than the
current state of PDFs and occasional KB postings, and will evolve
quickly to reflect all the new things you can do in Actions. I haven’t
added this to the main navigation yet, it’s our little (open) secret
for the moment.

I’ve started working on the JavaScript Reference section, and Joe
Billings has nominated Stewart (not sure he knows that yet) to do the
Writing Actions volume. We need volunteers to add the tech notes, and
to do cleanup and make additions to the raw text.

Eventually, I would like there to be some articles that act as a
“concordance” bringing the main volumes and the tech notes together,
as well as some articles (Weaver, Tim – are you up for this?) on
different coding styles and framework options.

Just like any good Wiki, all versions are saved so you can roll back
to a previous iteration if something goes badly, only I haven’t
exposed the interface for doing that yet. (Still working on a decent
“diff” view so you can evaluate the changes.) But I can naturally go
into the database and move some digits around to the same effect, so
you shouldn’t worry too much. Whomever makes a change to an existing
page will become the “author du jour” listed at the top of the page,
so we’ll know who to blame.

Comments, critique, brick-bats, etc. all welcome.

http://actionsforge.com/wikis

Walter


actionsdev mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Hi Walter,
About a month ago I got fed up of a lack of API documentation for all of the
cool stuff buried in the API that has yet to be exposed so decided to start
documenting my findings on an adhoc basis. What I have today is a database of
code samples, broken examples and some insights.
As I find time I’ll add these to the Wiki.
What do you want to do about speculative content like this? Should we only add
the documented side of the API or start chipping away at that mountain of cool
new stuff? :slight_smile:
If we do add the speculative content, how should it be marked out from the rest
of the (documented and tested) API stuff?
Lots of questions but a good conversation to have.
Regards,
Tim.

Extend Freeway the way you want with FreewayActions.com
http://www.freewayactions.com


actionsdev mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

That would be excellent if you could add it. I suggest you start a new
topic, off of the “official” API page. At the top-level of the wikis
tree, there’s a link labeled Write a Wiki. Just start there, call it
Tim’s Action Field Notes or whatever tickles your fancy. We can move
things into other branches at some future date if needed. The
beautiful thing about having everything in one place is that it
becomes searchable in one whack.

Walter

On Apr 8, 2009, at 12:44 PM, email@hidden wrote:

Hi Walter,
About a month ago I got fed up of a lack of API documentation for
all of the
cool stuff buried in the API that has yet to be exposed so decided
to start
documenting my findings on an adhoc basis. What I have today is a
database of
code samples, broken examples and some insights.
As I find time I’ll add these to the Wiki.
What do you want to do about speculative content like this? Should
we only add
the documented side of the API or start chipping away at that
mountain of cool
new stuff? :slight_smile:
If we do add the speculative content, how should it be marked out
from the rest
of the (documented and tested) API stuff?
Lots of questions but a good conversation to have.
Regards,
Tim.

Extend Freeway the way you want with FreewayActions.com
http://www.freewayactions.com


actionsdev mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


actionsdev mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Cool, thanks Walter.
The other thing I meant to mention was what I’d love to see is the ability to
paste your action code into a form field and have it splice the code based on
entries in the API database and spit out a minimum Freeway application version
dependancy. For example, I could upload the source for Anti Spam and have the
API database return, let’s say, Freeway 3.14 Pro as a result.
Until we get there can we add a ‘supported Freeway version’ field/area to the
wiki to do this manually?
How do you feel about entries around bugs in the API? In or out?
Thanks,
Tim.


actionsdev mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Kewl! Thanks for doing this, Walter. This is something we’ve needed for a long time, though maybe we just didn’t realize the way to do it.


actionsdev mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options