...
Documentation residing in the read the docs is always up to date and the most current. The ArchNav will require a separate manual update of the links pointing to the documentation in addition to the current RTD updates whenever there is a new release of ONAP.
- >capture need for infra' maintenance → budget ramification beyond this eval,
Moving ArchNav out of the lab to production will have a significant cost implication to the Linux Foundation Networking. The application will require to be run on cloud server instance with resource requirements as oultlined on the (Infrastructure requirements) section above.
RECOMMENDATION
- Implement a FACADE design pattern
...
To address the concerns for maintaining an up-to-date documentation reference, exploring and experimenting with some automation methods would be ideal. In this case, webhooks can be configured on github GitHub to be triggered to make an update to the flat file storage such as when there is a new release or a release tag changes.
Recommendation based on the Use Case
Based on above findings, the ArchNav platform has by large extent solved the highlighted shared problem on the problem statement. The goal for any softare program is to eliminate complexity and not introduce one. Architecture Navigator on one side which is, offering an intuative graphical navigation, and quick access to the documentation, has consistently produced stellar performance. Conversely, the platform which is a stand-alone application fails in the providing an integration structure for providing a single entry point for the ONAP documentation. Additionally, a pain point to be of concern would the complexity that might arise in implementing a clickable image features.