On Wednesday 20 Jul 2011 17:55:49 Pouyan Zachar wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Matthew Toseland <toad at > amphibian.dyndns.org > > wrote: > > > On Tuesday 19 Jul 2011 09:41:08 Pouyan Zachar wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Matthew Toseland > > > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > > [quote > > author="ancarda at PPXKgWN178fXdV3X3jMq8tqxIKIbP8PYK6BELBFuYTw.freetalk" > > message="acd6c72e-1d35-4dd9-ad9c-10eaa402d06a at > > PPXKgWN178fXdV3X3jMq8tqxIKIbP8PYK6BELBFuYTw > > "] > > > > Ok I threw this together in PowerPoint, it's a PDF though so it should > > work regardless of any platform. I am not inserting this to FreeNet it will > > take way too long. > > > > > > > > http://www.freefilehosting.net/freenet > > > > > > > > That's just my first idea of what the UI could be like. The settings > > are more basic however (I didn't add this in) there would always be an > > advanced option, like where you can tweak everything. > > > > > > Have you already decided how to realize the UI ? is it gonna be an > > > extension/rebuilding of HTML nodes or a completely new approach? > > > > If somebody (e.g. you!) wants to rewrite using some sort of template engine > > I'd be very happy for them to do so. > > I would be more than happy to do that. I have some ideas and implementations > from GSOC which might be helpful for realizing this. However, I am not sure > about the architecture (e.g. does every toadlet have a view?). The engine > which we all agreed upon is "Apache Velocity".
Currently a Toadlet handles both the view and controller parts. Usually handleMethodPOST is the controller equivalent and handleMethodGET is the view equivalent, because a toadlet simply handles HTTP methods (like a servlet), and we generally use POST forms for everything. As you may have guessed I didn't know about MVC when I wrote them! They were intended as a lightweight alternative to servlets. A complicating factor is that with web-pushing enabled, some of the HTMLNode's become dynamic, so that they can be pushed (I believe this is called comet). They persist for as long as the page containing them is open, they can be rendered at any time and there are classes that push when they need an update. Much of this code was disabled before web-pushing was merged however. I am open to suggestions for improvements... > > > Provided it allows us to generate static HTML for the case where the user > > has turned off javascript, > > this would be no problem. > > > provided it's not dramatically slower (some are faster), > > I cannot really know about this point. But velocity is known to be "really" > fast. > > > and provided it doesn't bloat the download up to 50MB, add another database > > engine etc! > > > However, the immediate thinking here is: > > - Make the post-install process as easy as possible, with high and medium > > security options to skip the wizard. (Or almost all of it e.g. we may have > > to ask about bandwidth if we can't autodetect; disk space is something I'm > > not sure about). > > - New stylesheets. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110720/b9a7492a/attachment.pgp>
