-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 383
docs: delete calling other apis page #641
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
Conversation
9af7d71 to
1e18ab0
Compare
|
I've noticed that other parts of the lb4 docs are also littered with subheaders on |
|
I'm good with either way:
|
|
@shimks I don't see any links in Can you point me to a line if I'm not seeing it please. |
|
My bad, I guess I was being hyperbolic when I said 'littered with'; I could only find incomplete references of calling other API (services) in |
shimks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO, we shouldn't delete the page. I'd rather rename it to something like Calling-other-APIs-and-Web-Services.SHELVED and then remove the reference of it from the sidebar. This would allow us to keep a track of the fact that we plan on (or at least planned on) adding docs for this section, and I think we can delegate the discussion of removal (or revival) of this page in a planning session for GA or whatever when it crops up.
jannyHou
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO if we want to implement new rest or soap feature, or refactor the ones in LB3, we can open issues to discuss it, a placeholder for document does not quite help move the progress...
bschrammIBM
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
approved
I'd agree with that for pages with somewhat meaningful content on them. This page is all just a big TBD so I think it's better to delete this one. cc: @raymondfeng thoughts? |
|
I'd rather keep it or toss it, instead of renaming it to something else. :) Few months later, we might forget about this renamed page. |
|
I'm with @dhmlau. The feature is coming - loopbackio/loopback-next#1119. If we think the pages are confusing, we can add some disclaimer there to make it clear. |
|
@raymondfeng there is no confusing as there is a I'm not opposed to keeping this page but think it's better to reflect the current state. If you disagree I can close this PR, and mark the review for this page as done. :) |
|
closing in favour of loopbackio/loopback-next#1177 |
I'd like to get opinions on this PR but in reviewing this page, it provides no relevant information to a user. I think this page should be deleted as such and added at a time when this feature has been implemented. Having a TBD page on features not yet implemented doesn't provide much value as a user can see our roadmap via our Milestones in LoopBack 4 Repo.
We already have issues to capture adding such features in
loopback-nextmonorepo.