Hi, A remaining thing to clarify is how to handle these restrictions in relation with the Nesting feature.
* For visibility restrictions, I believe it is safe to continue with the current behavior, that is to show the template provider in the specified location (space) and its children (subspaces). * For the default creation location, this does not apply * For creation restrictions, we need some consensus. Do we also allow creation in the children of the specified location restriction? ** This can create problems to the usecase when you use this field/restriction to make sure that an application properly reads the new entries by restricting creation to a specific space. If you were to allow children, the app would not properly read the new entries. Sure, you might say that the app needs fixing, but, depending on the app, it may not be possible. ** On the other side, in general templates (or for templates of apps that support nesting), allowing children for the restriction might be needed. *** Note that currently (recently implemented) we are allowing the creation in child spaces of the existing restrictions. ** Should we have a 4th "allow children" option, a boolean/checkbox value, to control the behavior of the creation restrictions to suit both major cases? Of course, we will not be able to have more complex settings (like 2 spaces with children and 2 spaces without children), but we could accept this limitation since it would probably be an edge case anyway. Another note on the differentiation between visibility and creation restrictions is that, in terms of UI, it would require some reworking, since having 2 trees in the same UI is not a good idea. Thanks, Eduard On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Anca Luca <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < >> [email protected] >> > wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > The Template Provider allows setting the locations where the template >> must >> > be available. >> > Some applications need/encourage their pages to be located in a >> particular >> > app location. >> > Currently, if we set such a location for a template, the template will >> be >> > listed in the "Create Page" step only if the user navigates to that >> > location and clicks on the "Add" button. >> > >> > One behavior could be that all templates are displayed each time the >> user >> > clicks on 'Add', regardless of the initial location. >> > This would mean splitting the current Location functionality into >> "Template >> > Visibility" and "Creation location restrictions": >> > - Ideally "Template Visibility" should not be restricted, but we would >> need >> > to keep this field in order to be backward compatible with the current >> > behavior. >> > - "Creation location restrictions" would indicate if the page needs to >> be >> > created in a particular location. The user will not be allowed to create >> > somewhere else and be warned by an error message. >> > >> >> I would identify 3 things that a template provider should be able to do: >> * be visible only in certain locations (the current feature, but maybe a >> bit more sophisticated) >> * recommend a location for the pages created from that template - >> "recommend" here would mean that the user could change that location if >> they wanted >> * restrict a location for the pages created from that template - >> "restrict" >> would mean that the location would be chosen by the template provider and >> the user would not be able to change it >> > > I agree. Those 3 fields would need to be added to a template provider > class. > > Note that these restrictions will add yet another point of technical debt > in the ability to rename/move an application, should we want to support > that at some point. Maybe we could leave that aside for now since it`s not > a priority. > > A migrator will also have to be done for existing templates to use the new > properties and the create UI and template provider sheet needs to be > updated. > > On the policy side, re the recommendation for new providers, I guess it is > up to them to decide if it makes sense for their application to enforce, > recommend or to allow any location where the template can create pages. On > the visibility side, though, I think we can safely recommend to allow the > template to be visible everywhere by default and let the admin set > restriction at runtime, depending on his needs. > > Thanks, > Eduard > > >> Note that the 3 above don't exclude eachother, so we can have them all >> implemented as options of the template provider. >> I think that the template provider should be able to fully control them. >> I.e. the template provider should decide if the location is to be >> restricted or only recommended. In addition, I see usecases for all 3 of >> them, so I don't think we should completely exclude one from the picture. >> >> Now, in my opinion, the rest is about how we present these options in the >> creation screen (do we present them all as equally important?) and what do >> we implement for the default applications. See my answers to your >> questions >> below. >> >> >> > >> > This mail's purpose is to debate: >> > A. If templates should be visible everywhere or just in a particular >> > location? >> > >> >> As I said, we should allow the template provider to decide that, as we >> currently do. >> >> >> > B. Should we recommend applications to restrict the creation of pages >> to a >> > particular location? >> > >> >> I think this depends on the application, on what kind of data it >> stores, how it handles rights, etc. >> >> Now, for a general recommendation, I think it would not be efficient to >> recommend restriction. I think at most we could guide towards a >> "recommended" location for the pages (in the sense described above), but >> it >> really depends on each application. There is great value in being able to >> create application pages anywhere on your wiki, so we shouldn't recommend >> against. >> HOWEVER >> My biggest concern here is that the users could very easily get confused >> between the application concept and the application page concept. For >> example, assume we'd have a blog post template provider available >> everywhere on the wiki, without a recommended location. I fear that the >> users will not realize that choosing the "Blog Post" template provider in >> the create page screen is not equivalent with creating a blog post using >> the create blog post form on the homepage of the blog application (the >> page >> accessible when clicking on the blog application). Same for all the app >> within minutes: "Create new entry" on the homepage of the application will >> create a new entry of the application "contained" in the application (read >> "in the data subtree of the application"), while choosing the template of >> that application from a create screen will not have the same effect. I can >> easily see the users getting a little confused with these. >> >> I think we can have solutions to this confusion that are only reelated to >> presentation, not to technical stuff, so it should not be scary. >> >> Thanks, >> Anca >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Let me know what you think. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Caty >> > >> > Related: >> > [1] http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-8759 >> > [2] >> > >> > >> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/HomepageSketches/HomepageTemplateAvailability/ >> > _______________________________________________ >> > devs mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
