These items require clarification to ensure the documentation accurately reflects the Neatoo and RemoteFactory frameworks.
Are these enum values correct?
| Value | Bit |
|---|---|
| Create | 1 |
| Fetch | 2 |
| Insert | 4 |
| Update | 8 |
| Delete | 16 |
| Read | 32 |
| Write | 64 |
| Execute | 128 |
Answer:
No, Read is 32, write is 128 and execute is 128 They are a bitwise. They are used to define the enum FactoryOperation.
Is validation strictly a Neatoo feature, or can RemoteFactory users access ValidateBase/validation capabilities independently?
Answer:
Validation is strictly a Neatoo feature.
Should there be separate AddRemoteFactoryServices() documentation for RemoteFactory-only usage, distinct from AddNeatooServices()?
Answer:
We want this site to be a Neatoo documentation site. The fact that RemoteFactory is seperable should be documented in it’s own page but everywhere else it should be assumed you are using full Neatoo. So, when talking about Value Objects and Authorization just referr to it as ‘Neatoo’.
Note: This is another change in thining going forward. In this site/repository treat everything as “Neatoo” handwaving over the fact that it’s neatoo and remotefactory (with the exception of a single page explaining the ability of remotefactory to run seperate). However, in the Neatoo repository the /docs will be Neatoo specific and in the RemoteFactory repository the /docs will be RemoteFactory specific.
Do the setup pages (_pages/setup/client.md and _pages/setup/server.md) need updates to clarify:
Neatoo.RemoteFactory onlyNeatoo (which includes RemoteFactory)Answer:
No. For this site assume they are using Neatoo and treat Neatoo + RemoteFactory as “Neatoo”.
Should the example project links throughout the documentation be verified and potentially updated to align with the RemoteFactory vs Neatoo distinction?
Current examples reference:
Answer:
Yes