#140: User-defined dashboard contents. -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: olemis | Owner: nobody Type: | Status: new enhancement | Milestone: Priority: minor | Version: Component: dashboard | Keywords: dashboard configuration database Resolution: | markup preferences admin -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by olemis): Replying to [comment:3 jdreimann]: > Replying to [comment:2 olemis]: > > Replying to [comment:1 jdreimann]: > > > From the description this seems to be a way to allow for more modifiable widgets, which could also be added or removed at will by the user. > > ... kind of ... > > Could please you clarify what the purpose is if my interpretation isn't correct? > Take my previous comment as a ''yes , as far as I understood'' . But, considering the fact that your initial statement is a bit generic and may be interpreted in different ways in first place (i.e. I write about what I think you said, and you reply considering what you think I said), please beware of the fact that a (yes | no) answer might not be accurate to express my opinion. > > > it needs a certain stability of what the user can expect in each widget, > > > > so what's the problem ? when you render a report you'll get a list of tickets , and so on ... or maybe I misunderstood something . > > That would suggest that the only widgets allowed are ones that essentially display the results of custom queries. > when I said so , the ... is used to briefly omit further similar statements like ''when you render a report you'll get a list of tickets '' , ''when you render ticket stats you'll get a progress bar'', ''when you render a .PNG attachment you'll get a picture'' , and so on . > > > nevermind a collection of worthwhile widgets, > > > > ... with time they'll be there ''';)''' . They won't if we don't provide foundation ''API''s to build them > > We can still allow plugins to extend the interface without having individual users modify their Dashboards. > That's another approach , yes . Let's see it from a different perspective . If a decision has been made by a team to render another widget (let's assume it's already implemented) or the same widget but with different arguments (e.g. different columns in query widgets) then ... why should they implement a plugin to (extend | override) default dashboard ? Besides please consider reading [http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox /incubator-bloodhound-dev/201207.mbox/%3cCAGMZAuOB-rZ9+UMFGD7KRG-wn+1ea- _w5x2ltoenh7ch5rv...@mail.gmail.com%3e this message] actually started by Gary and related to role-specific (e.g. user groups) dashboards and other similar use cases , IMO requiring extra flexibility. > > ... so what's the problem about that ? > [...] > I think you've gone off track here. this is why I said ''... kind of ...'' above . When replying to generic statements it's always possible that the parties involved in the conversation have different ideas , thus misunderstand parts of the conversation or talk about the same '''thing''' but thinking about them from a different perspective . Now I recall some pictures in [http://www.amazon.com/Object-Oriented-Analysis-Design-Applications- Edition/dp/0805353402 Grady Booch's book] ''';)''' > This is about whether Bloodhound itself should commit to providing this functionality, not whether a plugin may provide it. The real question is if we should build the infrastructure and commit to maintaining it, when we give others the opportunity to do so regardless if our decision. > Well , maybe you have a point here . It's possible that the project won't deliver the whole dashboard configuration web UI and further artifacts needed (though IMO it should) ... maybe ... but it should at least the barely minimal requirements are to provide clear extension points allowing to customize dashboard contents . Right now all that turns out to be hard- coded , and that limits the potential of the underlying infrastructure . > > > To my knowledge evidence suggests that users do not regularly assess all available options and rationally decide on which ones to choose, which makes this a potentially very complicated system to maintain and support for a small proportion of users. > > > Even if first statement may be true , I don't agree on the conclusion . I've developed ''TracGViz'' plugin and since some time ago users have been smart enough to decide exactly what they want to see . > > I'm not doubting users intelligence here. What you're saying though is equivalent to a provider of ringtones to say that their customers don't have any problem using ringtones, while missing that the vast majority of mobile phone users never change their default ringtone. > ... but some of them do it . And that's a good example because that's a reason why I like my shiny ''Android'' smartphone ''';)''' . I even use [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.jamesclonk.android.ringtonerandomizer&hl=en this app] this randomize a lot of ringtones, and I don't need to implement anything like a plugin to decide which ringtones I want to enable at a given time. Besides I use [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ringdroid&hl=en this one] to create my own ringtones . IOW even if default ''Android'' settings tool doesn't allow for doing this, it's possible to do so and I want to (... and those apps are so lovely that it almost hurts ''';)''' . You'll notice that there are ''165,279'' votes for ''Ringdroid'' averaging '''4.6''' , and ''299'' votes for ''Ringtone Randomizer'' averaging '''4.2''' ; and in the later case mainly not that much just because there are quite a few similar apps, some of they supported, more comercial , and ... ''';)''' > > No need to whitelist or blacklist anything , force a particular policy , ... I do see a lot of use cases (especially when using plugins ''';)''' for users wishing to add other information in dashboard views. > > I'm more than happy for plugins to extend the dashboard views. > IMO it'd be awesome if plugins are able to insert widgets in dashboards at plugin environment setup or upgrade time ... but let them decide what widgets to insert in there afterwards . > > (...) From a more technical perspective, before I've mentioned that widgets are an intermediate step between WikiMacros and gadgets , so it turns out to me that we should provide something similar to the capabilities offered by ''iGoogle'' et al. (even if not that quite sophisticated , still usable ''';)'' . > > So what are these gadgets that we're working towards? ... I'm not sure that ''working towards'' is accurate . I'd rather say that they were the inspiration for the design of widgets architecture in a way similar to modern technology inspired on ''DaVinci'' devices ''';)''' http://www.google.com/ig/directory https://developers.google.com/igoogle/ http://code.google.com/igoogle/dashboard/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGoogle_Gadgets ... and jftr there is also this ''Apache'' project named [http://incubator.apache.org/projects/shindig.html Shindig] , which is related to the subject . But like I said , the goal is not to reinvent gadgets so e.g. synergies and integration between both projects are off topic; so far we don't even have a need of any kind to use a gadget container . The idea is to consider their success and experience in the field in order to reuse all that knowledge while building our ''API''s . > I can't recall this being discussed on the mailing list. Maybe improving WikiMacros significantly may be a more worthwhile cause? It's the same cause , trust me . And it is by design since the first time I started ''API'' design . To me improving WikiMacros means building widgets and embed them using WidgetMacro ''';)''' -- Ticket URL: <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/140#comment:4> Apache Bloodhound <https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/> The Apache Bloodhound (incubating) issue tracker