Gavin,
Please don't see my posting as an attack on anyone participating in the
branch. It is just a reflection of my observation infused with a viewpoint.
I appreciate what has been done.
And, how to do skin variants has popped up before in relation to ecommerce.
See various mail threads in devML. So, the effort applied and the result
achieved validate the added goal of the Bootstrap PoC.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Gavin Mabie <kwikst...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Pierre
Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of
Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind
of
Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use
the
Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was
required
to have).
When I initially included the "Bootstrap Tomahawk" theme, the purpose
was
solely to indicate how easy it would be to develop skins for a theme.
Naturally some might think that it is a "beautification", but that is a
matter of opinion. In the real world you may find clients who do not
agree
with this notion. It's for this reason that most designers first
present a
vanilla look-and-feel so that clients can bring their preferences into
the
mix. As a community our goal should be to present Ofbiz as visually
appealing as possible without being too prescriptive in terms of
look-and-feel. Most projects do this by using generic (if not bland)
look-and-feel's for their apps. Hence "Basic". BTW Bootstrap is not a
web
framework!
With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped
Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial
goal.
Going beyond the initial goal is perhaps at the crux of it. I personally
think it is too early to do this. There are other, higher priority
issues
that need addressing before we get sexy on this. For one, we haven't
dealt
with responsiveness sufficiently. While we have demonstrated that the
Ofbiz framework is flexible enough to handle Bootstrap and perhaps any
other JavaScript framework, we have yet to address HTML 5 issues.
Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes
in
the ftl files for the one on the other.
I don't agree with the idea that these are difficulties. It is a simple
solution to the problem arising from treating "Sunrise" as a theme.
Also,
it acknowledges the work done by Julien in line with the "People before
Code" mantra.
That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467,
and
provided patches for the two disentangled themes in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362
This, I believe, is a complication. There is nothing complicated about
the
recommendation to fork header.ftl and appbar.ftl. In fact I would like
to
see this kind of practice promoted in Ofbiz as it allows designers more
options.
Regards
Gavin
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of
Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind
of
Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use
the
Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was
required
to have).
With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped
Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial
goal.
Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of
changes
in
the ftl files for the one on the other.
That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467
,
and
provided patches for the two disentangled themes in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gavin Mabie <kwikst...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I did not review anything but from your explanation having
separated/specific header.ftl & appbar.ftl files in "Sunrise" makes
sense
to me (since it's a "skin")
BTW I understand that <<Sunrise is a "skin">> because it's mostly a
copy
of basic, right?
That's right. If Julien is okay with it, I can move his commits to
new
folder "sunrise" under bootstrap/includes. The "sunrise" folder can
serve
as placeholder for templates that deviate from the "basic" templates.
I agree with Pierre that we should try to get this into the trunk
sooner
rather then later because of the massive refactoring work. New
issues
will
definitely emerge once in the trunk, but we can deal with that there.
Gavin
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
Le 24/06/2015 11:47, Gavin Mabie a écrit :
Four issues:
1. The Bootstrap Basic and "Bootstrap Sunrise" is in fact just
one
theme
with Basic as theme and Sunrise as a "skin" (implementation of
Basic).
Hence the location of the css for Sunrise under
bootstrap/css/skins.
Other
than that, Sunrise uses the same template libraries as Basic.
It
is
a
false
choice.
2. If we want to elevate Sunrise to theme status (i.e not
just
a
skin),
then we have to create separate template libraries for it. To
qualify
as a
theme, it should have its own distinct widget implementation
including
headers, menus, forms, tables, pagination etc.
3. The commits by Julien - r1683430 (header.ftl & appbar.ftl)
affects
both Basic and Sunrise. I have not seen patches for these and
could
therefore not do reviews.
4. The approach with the Basic theme is to keep it as basic as
possible,
minimizing personal preferences with regards to look-and-feel
and
leaving
this level of styling up to individual designers.
I have committed patches to deal with most if not all the issues
flagged
by
Adrian on 19 May 2015. New issues have cropped up as a result of
r1683430. To get this merge-ready my recommendation is that we
revert
r1683430 which deals with header.ftl & appbar.ft. These are minor
issues
which relate mainly to personal preferences. If the changes
introduced
with
r1683430 is absolutely necessary, then I recommend that separate
header.ftl
& appbar.ftl files are created and that themeResources in
"Sunrise"
point
to locations where the new files reside.
I did not review anything but from your explanation having
separated/specific header.ftl & appbar.ftl files in "Sunrise" makes
sense
to me (since it's a "skin")
BTW I understand that <<Sunrise is a "skin">> because it's mostly a
copy
of basic, right?
Jacques
Regards
Gavin
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pierre Smits <
pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am running the Bootstrap Basic (somewhat modified) against
trunk.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
I evaluated the bootstrap branch as it currently exists. If
there
are
patches waiting to be applied to the branch, then I am not aware
of
them.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 6/23/2015 12:43 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for the feedback. That the existing patch files
available
in
JIRA
issues don't work in trunk has to do with the fact that the
bootstrap
dev
branch is not in sync with trunk. We have to take in
consideration
that
the
framework stack of the bootstrap branch is based (for the
greater
part)
on
r1634810.
On top of that, the Bootstrap Basic and the other one were
co-developed.
And shortly before the disentanglement of the two themes
changes
in
the
templates were implemented for the other theme that affected
the
Bootstrap
Basic theme negatively.
Nonetheless, I am ok with whatever which way the community
chooses
to
go
with these bootstrap themes and the ones in trunk. It remains a
personal
preference what one likes best.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local
copy
yesterday
and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still
exist,
plus
I found another one.
I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can
be
fixed
after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too
many.
Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in
the
trunk.
The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention
as
the
other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest
we
port
over
one of the themes instead of two.
Also, it would be nice to drop one or two existing themes.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 6/23/2015 2:08 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Hi all,
Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with
respect
to
widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from
framework (
OFBIZ-6362 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362
)
and
in
the
Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840>).
Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the
Bootstrap
Basic
and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready.
What do you think?
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
