With all due respect to the person who wrote this page, and with the caveat that I'm annoyed right now, this page without further data is very frustrating. At the very least include a reference to the "Understanding web server terminology" at the top of the page. It's not that I don't have a general understanding of the terms -- it's that from the data on this page I don't know their significance or use in this context. The "Understanding" page should also be expanded to provide more data -- or some of it moved into this page.
For example, the URL Prefix does not define what the "URL Prefix" IS. Clicking on the link for more information tells nothing. In this context, what is a URL Prefix? The path from the webroot to the application install directory? the server and port information that should be prefixed to URLs? Where is it used? Why would I need/not need it? These are partially answered in the "Understanding" page but that only gives one scenario -- are there others?
Webserver Port: It says to enter the port number of the CF server instance I'm configuring. Is this referring to the built-in web server? What if I don't use it? If I don't use it, is this setting option or do I enter in the port for the site I'm setting up?
Document Root: Talks about the "document root for the web server" -- is this really what is needed all the time? My IIS doc root might be by default c:\inetpub\wwwroot but I have sites configured under IIS so if I am setting up a server related to a site do I enter the path of the site (which is outside of inetpub\wwwroot and is differentiated by a port)?
Again some of this is answered in the "Understanding" article, but this page by itself does not provide enough data to really understand what is involved in setting up a new server in CF Builder 2. The purpose and use of each setting -- and how it affects working with CFBuilder would really help.
FWIW, I could not agree more. I have raised this with Adobe before: they don't seem to get that docs can't be written from the perspective of the person already knowing what the docs mean, because that absolutely the opposite audience of at whom the docs are aimed. A very large percentage of their newer docs are written this way.
They also have a habit of having docs that just repeat exactly the item you were looking up help on, eg you click help on the "setting up a widget" screen, and the help simply says "this screen is for setting up a widget". Well thanks for that.
I don't think they have dedicated document writers, instead it's down to the individual creating [whatever feature] the documentation is documenting, and those individuals simply don't understand how to write documentation, nor why the docs are needed in the first place. I'm not going to condemn those individuals too much because they're developers not documentation writers, but the end result is Adobe look amateurish, and we - the people who need the docs - are just sucked in.
Europe, Middle East and Africa