On Mar 1, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 1, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Like Vincent, I do not really think we have thoroughly worked >>>>> our templates. IMO, templates should not be considered a good base for >>>>> implementing UI extension point blindly. >>>>> >>>>> Currently templates were closely linked with our distributed skin. When we >>>>> have introduce Colibri, new templates were added, especially to support >>>>> the >>>>> new content menu for example, and other were ignored, left over since no >>>>> more useful. Do you consider UI extension point to be closely linked with >>>>> our skin ? What would happen when we implement the bootstrap based skin ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> When I look at the list of UIXP I pasted I don't see it closely >>>> related to a specific skin. >>>> Some names are not perfect, but again I don't think we can afford >>>> renaming them (because of our skin overriding mechanism). >>>> What problem do you foresee with a bootstrap based skin ? Would it be >>>> difficult to keep current template names ? >>>> >>>>> Just think about the proposal from Cathy, there is no more left panels... >>>> >>>> Does the fact that the proposal have a single panel in the left column >>>> means that we should consider dropping the panel feature ? >>>> >>>>> but an applications panel or whatever, how do you expect to support >>>>> platform.template.leftpanels.top, platform.template.leftpanels.bottom, >>>>> what >>>>> would be there meaning ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> We could drop leftpanels.vm and rightpanels.vm and make the panel app >>>> hook itself to platform.template.endpage.top. >>>> >>>>> For sure doing 1) is harder, but creating truly semantic UIXP could have >>>>> real advantage for maintenance and compatibility of code that use those >>>>> UIXP. So I would really prefer a few initial set of those semantic UIXP to >>>>> start with, than that long list of not necessarily useful and meaningful >>>>> ones. And, at least, I would like to read more opinion to consider 2). >>>>> >>>> >>>> 1) is harder and I'm afraid it can start endless discussions :) >>> >>> That's exactly why we need 1) :) >>> >> >> I meant "endless" literally. >> > > To be more precise let's say someone writes an app that'd need an UIXP > at platform.template.header.bottom, if we decide to go for 1) he'll > probably take the time to push for this particular UIXP, but that's > it. At that pace the risk is to end up with let's say 10 UIXPs by the > end of 2013. I don't understand why you want to consider UIXP different from a Java API for example. For me it's as important and as difficult to remove/modify. The worse that can happen is not having not enough UIXP but having too many and people starting creating extensions and having all UI-related extensions broken on e.x.o. Since we're just starting with UIXP it's probably better to do it slowly as we learn it. That's why I said before that we need to define a strategy for deprecating UIXP. If we have a good strategy that may help in adding new UIXP more easily. Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
