..hi guys..i need short guidance regarding API docs..basically Wiki talks about version 1.0 and im about to purchase 2.0. So, i would like to know, is it Wiki, valid for version 2.0 ?? I mean, API has not been changed, it may be some new commands, but API described in Wiki, will work just fine with 2.0 ??

Api is the same. Only docs for 2.0 have to be updated

Hi,

Most things from the Wiki still apply to 2.0
Those that don't apply I've moved to a section for 1.0-only
It's on the main page of the Wiki but on the bottom

Please remember that I still have on the roadmap upgrading whole documentation for 2.0 which will provide more specific information about 2.0 itself

Also please remember that I've put a lot of focus on making Esenthel headers very clean and informative, with plenty of easy to understand and well commented tutorials

The tutorial examples and headers are the best way to learn. The wiki provides good info the architecture of the engine.

(03-01-2013 10:10 AM)Esenthel Wrote:  I've put a lot of focus on making Esenthel headers very clean and informative, with plenty of easy to understand and well commented tutorials

Esenthel, sorry but you should focus on using something like Doxygen.
Or at least comment input/output/process for each function/class etc.
I've noticed some comments are just the name of the class/param, which doesn't help, and of cause if you don't search for right words you wont find it.

@Ecco, this will help:
http://www.esenthel.com/community/showth...1#pid36891

http://www.esenthel.com/community/showth...1#pid36631

In a way, it separates the boys from the man, but it's really unnecessary.

(03-01-2013 10:02 AM)Ecco Wrote:  I mean, API has not been changed, it may be some new commands, but API described in Wiki, will work just fine with 2.0 ??

Many of the recent new comers seem to be a little confused on this point. The engine (or api, or sdk, or <insert buzz word here>) has not changed. 2.0 simply refers to a new version of the tool set. The actual engine itself is the same and thus all documentation for it remains the same.

(03-01-2013 11:33 AM)gwald Wrote:  Esenthel, sorry but you should focus on using something like Doxygen.
Or at least comment input/output/process for each function/class etc.
I've noticed some comments are just the name of the class/param, which doesn't help, and of cause if you don't search for right words you wont find it.

@gwald, I don't think you've had enough time yet to learn the engine and its header style documentation. For many of us that have been here for years (myself included), the header documentation has become quite good. Many of the functions and their parameters are documented enough or are fairly self explanatory.

Sure there is the odd obscure function or parameter, but Esenthel is pretty good at fixing it up if you let him know. The headers are logically laid out and grouped into related folders. When I first started, it was a bit hard to find what you need, but once you spend the time to learn the headers you'll never look back. Trust me.

Additionally, time he spends converting documentation is time he could be working on features

The point is that doxygen style chm file offers absolutely no advantages over existing Code Editor's Header Browser.
In fact the engine already had doxygen chm file in the past, but I replaced it with Header Browser.
You can already do there everything you need - browse headers, one-click jump to definition/declaration, advanced find functionality (symbol, nearest symbol, text, sort by type-enum,class,variable), option to hide function bodies/private members in View Mode
What you're asking for is more detailed comment/explanation of each function, yes I can do that (will add to roadmap in a moment) however as you can see the roadmap has plenty of elements, so it will take time

(03-01-2013 12:07 PM)fatcoder Wrote:  When I first started, it was a bit hard to find what you need, but once you spend the time to learn the headers you'll never look back. Trust me.

I trust you & esenthel, I'm still here

(03-01-2013 12:27 PM)Rollcage Wrote:  Additionally, time he spends converting documentation is time he could be working on features

That's still no excuse for not having an API reference, or at least having input/output/process for each function, which is what programmers would expect from any "commercial library", correct?

This is my process of learning esenthel.
Personally, I think it's extreme to go to these measures, just to learn a library.

http://www.esenthel.com/community/showth...p?tid=6043
Anyway.. that's just me.

---

(03-01-2013 01:05 PM)Esenthel Wrote:  The point is that doxygen style chm file offers absolutely no advantages over existing Code Editor's Header Browser.

I can print it and read it as a reference, which i have done.
I can also print headers, so that's okay to.
Maybe it's just me tho.

Quote:That's still no excuse for not having an API reference, or at least having input/output/process for each function, which is what programmers would expect from any "commercial library", correct?

It's not an excuse... you are asking for 2 different things. More documentation(which will be addressed) and converting the current documentation.(which you keep asking for)