Very interesting perspective Gavin, thank you for sharing your experiences.
Frankly your jQuery suggestion makes sense. We keep what we already use. It just makes sense! Yeah bootstrap is bigger and has more support, but jQuery is already there in the code base ready to be improved. On the other hand, I don't like at all the idea of building a grid with my own hands using @media. I'd much rather have something constructed and battle tested. But this needs some further thinking. So how about this approach then: - Construct a grid by hand or (more likely) use an existing minimal library for that. - Enhance the user interface with modern widgets using jQuery UI This makes the solution more pragmatic, simpler and cleaner. If everyone is in agreement then I will start a small PoC? WDYT? On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Gavin Mabie <kwikst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com >> wrote: > >> Hello Gavin, Your timing is pretty good actually and we can gain from >> your experience. Comments and questions inline ... >> >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Gavin Mabie <kwikst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi guys >> > >> > I've been away for a while so my input maybe a bit behind the curve. >> > Having said that, I have some useful Bootstrap-with-Ofbiz experience >> under >> > the belt which may be relevant to this discussion: >> > 1. Bootstrap is mainly CSS. It's pretty, but with limited JavaScript >> > functionality. In-fact JS in Bootstrap is entirely optional because it >> > doesn't pretend to be a JS Framework. >> >> Perhaps this is a point in favor of Bootstrap. The less JavaScript the >> less messy things are. >> > > That's true - and it really looks good. But the real good stuff that users > expect from a modern UI needs the power provided by JS. > So Bootstrap without JS is good until you need to expand or collapse a > panel, or you need a modal (crucial in UI design), or a tab, > accordion,popover etc. > Then you'll need Bootstrap JS. These are called components (widgets) in the > Bootstrap universe and they are really common across most JS frameworks. > It is important to note that in Bootstrap JS components are limited (about > 10 in total) and it excludes some which are critical for Ofbiz (see below). > > >> >> > 2. You will be required to mine 3rd party plugins/widgets to cover >> > functionalities absent from Bootstrap - and those may not be >> > well-maintained. Risky! >> >> What would we need? And why would we need it? Why _must_ it be a plugin? >> > > We need a datepicker and we already have a robust one in Ofbiz (jQuery Ui > Datepicker). It's used all over the place. > Bootstrap doesn't come with a datepicker functionality - you can use > something like bootstrap-datepicker from eternicode (a 3rd party). I guess > that's the plugin. > Of course this means more dependencies, more maintenance management. > Besides, implementing i18N with bootstrap datepicker is a tricky > proposition. Alternatively you could choose to use the jQuery UI > Datepicker with bootstrap. But that means more libraries to manage. > >> >> > 3. Autocomplete and Date Picking functions specifically - frequently used >> > in Ofbiz, but not "native" in Bootstrap. This sometimes leads to all >> manner >> > of conflicts and complicates manageability. >> >> Can you elaborate please? Do you have an example of a problem that we >> will would face should we adopt Bootstrap? >> > I've alluded to the multiple library problem above at the hand of the date > picking functionality. Another big gap is the fact that bootstrap doesn't > have a "native" autocomplete/autosuggest functionality. > You'll probably find one if you search around and you could probably write > your own. This functionality already exists in jQuery UI. You could try to > dress the jQury UI functionalities with bootstrap CSS to > achieve a consistent look-and-feel. My experience is that this approach > would soon bloat your CSS to unmanageable proportions. In summary - using > jQuery UI along-side bootstrap or visa-versa is a no-no. > There can be only ONE. > > > >> >> > >> > If your only criteria for Bootstrap is grid-layout capabilities, consider >> > that grid is quite easily attainable with pure CSS through the @media >> >> That's a lot of work! That's like saying let's write a desktop app in >> Assembly. I mean you can do it, but why! The "@media" is just a >> building block. >> > > Actually, it is not a lot work at all. For your responsive design you > decide on screen sizes, define breakpoints and write the CSS. see( > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Media_Queries/Using_media_queries) > . > >> >> > selector used with break points. Secondly, "Grid" will become a standard >> in >> > CSS (see https://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-2/). The investment in a >> > "framework" for "Grid" only - that's an overkill. >> >> Well, naturally, if you implement bootstrap then you get all the >> goodies with it, not just the grid, otherwise you can choose a simple >> Grid library (many out there) >> > > If you list the "goodies", you'll see that its really not that impressive: > Bootstrap component List (I count ten) > > - Modal > - Dropdown > - Scrollspy > - Tab > - Tooltip > - Popover > - Alert > - Button > - Collapse (Accordion) > - Carousel > > jQuery UI goodies: > > - Accordion > - Autocomplete > - Button > - Checkboxradio > - Controlgroup > - Datepicker > - Dialog > - Menu > - Progressbar > - Selectmenu > - Slider > - Spinner > - Tabs > - Tooltip > > Pound for pound I'll pick jQuery UI over bootstrap. > > Now throw in jQuery Mobile and you get even more functionality - including > SPA. Note there is not conflict between jQuery UI and jQuery Mobile - the > work together well. > >> >> > >> > My 2 Cents: >> > 1. How about jQuery Mobile(JQM)? It's part of the jQuery family. We >> > already use jQuery as JavaScript framework, to use JQM would be a logical >> > extension. >> > 2. JQM covers SPA - an important functionality identified by some in this >> > thread. >> > 3. JQM fits in nicely with jQuery UI - something which we are already >> using >> > in Ofbiz with autocomplete/suggest, date picking and modals. >> > >> > Final thoughts - Cleaner separation between JS and Freemarker using HTML >> > elements: >> > 1. We are not using new outlining and sectioning elements like <section>, >> > <article>, <nav>, <header>, <footer>, or <aside> in our templates. They >> > hold obvious advantages. >> > 2. Global data-* attributes. We're not using this at all. It can help >> us >> > to reduce JS in Freemarker templates. >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Gavin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Shi Jinghai <huaru...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> +1. >> >> >> >> Excellent. >> >> >> >> -----邮件原件----- >> >> 发件人: Taher Alkhateeb [mailto:slidingfilame...@gmail.com] >> >> 发送时间: 2018年5月20日 2:31 >> >> 收件人: OFBIZ Development Mailing List >> >> 主题: Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js >> >> >> >> This was a thought provoking and interesting discussion and I learned >> >> new stuff from it, so thank you all for your valuable input. >> >> >> >> On further reflection and after thinking about your comments, I think >> >> Vue.js would be influenced in its design if we have a REST API in >> >> place, however, something like Bootstrap is not relevant because it is >> >> just a pure CSS / Javascript library to offer a grid system and some >> >> user interface widgets. It has no model to bind to nor does it require >> >> any back-end traffic (SPA stuff). >> >> >> >> So I recommend proceeding with Bootstrap, and we can delay something >> >> like Vue.js while we proceed in implementing the Web Services API. >> >> I'll start or find another thread for that discussion. >> >> >> >> WDYT? >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:43 AM, innate Genius >> >> <innate.pass...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > +1 For Jacques, Scot & Rajesh’s View Point. >> >> > >> >> >> "I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and >> >> >> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices >> >> >> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI >> developers >> >> >> and >> >> >> system integrators / framework users." >> >> > >> >> > This is been discussed in few other threads but this is a issue that >> is >> >> long due. And would love to see the community to finally address this. >> >> > >> >> > @Taher: Webservice to consume JSON would be the most beneficial and >> >> desired enhancement to the framework. >> >> > >> >> > Thx & Rgds, >> >> > >> >> > Pratiek >> >> > >> >> >> On 17-May-2018, at 9:27 PM, Rajesh Mallah <mallah.raj...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi List , >> >> >> >> >> >> The default UI of OFBiz does look aged but I feel it does a great job >> >> >> of being productive. As discussed before also ERP being a serious >> >> >> backroom software and mostly operated by staff to whom all the bells >> >> >> and whistles of modern frameworks may not make any difference. >> >> >> >> >> >> But since adoption of OFBiz to enterprises is dependent on decision >> >> makers/ >> >> >> influencer who may not even know the nuances of UI and its relation >> to >> >> >> productivity it is important to look modern and shiny and which is >> the >> >> >> reason of >> >> >> this thread by Mr. Taher. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hence IMHO its good and required for OFBiz. >> >> >> >> >> >> At the same time we need to increase the comfort level of system >> >> integrators >> >> >> and people who use ofbiz as a framework. >> >> >> >> >> >> I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and >> >> >> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices >> >> >> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI >> developers >> >> >> and >> >> >> system integrators / framework users. >> >> >> >> >> >> I also humbly feel while this modernization is done, the existing >> >> interface >> >> >> should >> >> >> not be done away with as people develop very strange and innovative >> >> comfort >> >> >> zones with software UIs which are difficult to anticipate by >> developers. >> >> >> >> >> >> my 2cents. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> regds >> >> >> mallah. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >> >> >> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hi Scott, Taher, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I think you are both right, and maybe because you are mostly working >> >> for 2 >> >> >>> different markets or have different types of clients. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Anyway, what I mean is: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> 1. Form widgets are not of much use when you have to deploy a new UI >> >> for >> >> >>> an ecommerce or alike project (frontend). >> >> >>> 2. They are very useful when you are working on a backend project >> (ie >> >> ERP >> >> >>> part) where people don't care much about bells and whistle (even if >> >> that's >> >> >>> less and less happening) but want a fast ROI ("time-to-market >> >> reasons" >> >> >>> as said Taher) >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I don't know if Mathieu will get enough time to succeed on his >> project. >> >> >>> But obviously if we had the possibility to generate RESTful web >> >> services >> >> >>> from OFBiz services, with the export attribute like for SOAP and >> RMI, >> >> then >> >> >>> Scott's idea would be fulfilled and that would help much, not only >> in >> >> the >> >> >>> UI area of course. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Now for widgets, the form part could maybe slowly replaced by using >> >> tools >> >> >>> like Bootstrap and Vue.js. Or the new flavor in some years and that >> >> must be >> >> >>> very seriously taken into account to not have to redo it again, in >> few >> >> >>> years... >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Jacques >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Le 15/05/2018 à 12:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you! >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is >> that >> >> >>>> we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data >> >> >>>> fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good >> >> >>>> strategy. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies >> >> >>>> heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has >> been >> >> >>>> immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. >> However, >> >> >>>> of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy >> customizations >> >> >>>> or the need to integrate with other systems. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that >> >> >>>> "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is >> applicable >> >> >>>> in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is >> through >> >> >>>> the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both >> >> >>>> strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible >> web >> >> >>>> APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service >> >> >>>> calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious >> >> >>>> things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget >> >> >>>> system itself (also a good idea!) >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward >> the >> >> >>>> implementation of web services, but I think introducing these >> >> >>>> frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray >> >> >>>> <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi Taher, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web >> >> APIs to >> >> >>>>> access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice >> of >> >> UI >> >> >>>>> technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of >> things. >> >> No >> >> >>>>> one >> >> >>>>> would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because >> they >> >> could >> >> >>>>> build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the >> >> >>>>> server-side code. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, >> >> >>>>> inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our >> >> services >> >> >>>>> are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy >> modification >> >> of >> >> >>>>> the >> >> >>>>> server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders >> to >> >> >>>>> ofbiz >> >> >>>>> from another application, I can't really do anything without >> >> interacting >> >> >>>>> with the OFBiz UI. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve >> a >> >> >>>>> completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor >> of >> >> the >> >> >>>>> month UI framework to build it with. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be >> nice >> >> if >> >> >>>>> any >> >> >>>>> UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used >> >> both by >> >> >>>>> our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone >> else's >> >> >>>>> framework of choice. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Regards >> >> >>>>> Scott >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, < >> >> slidingfilame...@gmail.com> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi Scott, >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I >> fully >> >> >>>>>> understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services >> >> that can >> >> >>>>>> sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html >> and >> >> >>>>>> weaving >> >> >>>>>> in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is >> >> >>>>>> inefficient >> >> >>>>>> in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in >> >> place? >> >> >>>>>> What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better >> >> understanding >> >> >>>>>> of >> >> >>>>>> your point of view since this seems to be a critical >> architectural >> >> >>>>>> decision. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray < >> >> scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> >> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, < >> >> slidingfilame...@gmail.com >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray >> >> >>>>>>>> <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I think no matter what we use someone will always want >> something >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> different. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've >> >> written >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> over >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> the years to support custom UIs. >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and >> >> rewriting >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> our >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> existing screens to use them. From there we could start >> looking at >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> new >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> UI >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> frameworks. >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? >> Why >> >> >>>>>>>> rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing >> >> functionality? >> >> >>>>>>>> What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web >> >> services >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> custom >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot >> >> less >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> time >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project >> >> >>>>>>> without >> >> >>>>>>> even touching the existing codebase. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of >> UI >> >> >>>>>>>>> customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> workload >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> much >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be >> completely >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> rewritten, >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales >> >> process. >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. >> The >> >> >>>>>>>> reasons I suggested these libraries are: >> >> >>>>>>>> - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You >> have a >> >> >>>>>>>> powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The >> buttons, >> >> >>>>>>>> tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. >> >> >>>>>>>> - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your >> >> context >> >> >>>>>>>> model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript >> and >> >> >>>>>>>> Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in >> 2018 >> >> to >> >> >>>>>>>> keep jumping between many pages to get something done. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still >> only >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> defines >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> a >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is >> >> using >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> likes of swagger and restful APIs? >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will >> be >> >> the >> >> >>>>>>>> first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, >> and >> >> I >> >> >>>>>>>> was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted >> to >> >> >>>>>>>> GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the >> backend. >> >> >>>>>>>> However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, >> >> I'm >> >> >>>>>>>> just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's >> >> wrong >> >> >>>>>>>> with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many >> >> discussions >> >> >>>>>>> and >> >> >>>>>>> efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some >> >> >>>>>>> thoughts >> >> >>>>>>> on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale >> >> effort. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Regards >> >> >>>>>>>>> Scott >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> slidingfilame...@gmail.com> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, >> and >> >> the >> >> >>>>>>>>>> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning >> >> well, >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> but >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >> >> >>>>>>>>>> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] >> >> [6] [7] >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to >> >> follow >> >> >>>>>>>>>> through. >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm >> not >> >> sure >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the >> problem >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> is >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> simply .. TOO BIG >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some >> >> initial >> >> >>>>>>>>>> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) >> >> needs to >> >> >>>>>>>>>> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than >> >> revolutionary. So >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. >> >> Bootstrap >> >> >>>>>>>>>> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive >> >> website >> >> >>>>>>>>>> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful >> >> widgets to >> >> >>>>>>>>>> work with. >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> excellent >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> dynamic >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We >> can >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> begin >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, >> then >> >> >>>>>>>>>> buttons etc .. >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic >> in >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Vue.js >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> mentioned >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> libraries and widgets >> >> >>>>>>>>>> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This >> means >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> that >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a >> little >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> bit >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and >> if >> >> that >> >> >>>>>>>>>> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full >> >> implementation >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> in >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> looks >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >> >> >>>>>>>>>> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >>
