Hi, I am in favour of this proposal since I expressed few months ago the need of a link in the EM UI to easily access the extension's homepage.
Thanks, Alex On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On 15 Oct 2016, at 13:30, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>> On 14 Oct 2016, at 19:03, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected] > > > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> This does not make any sense at general Extension level. > > >>> > > >>> Could be custom metadata that apply to XAR extensions. Since that > only > > >>> make sense for XAR extensions I would prefer to have this be > > >>> implemented as a xobject as usual. > > >> > > >> Yes, it could be implemented as a UIXP/XObject of the Extension UI. > > >> > > >>> For me this is already the job of the uix we use for application > panel > > >>> so I don't really see the point of adding something else. > > >> > > >> It’s not enough at all. That was my main point and explanation. > > Apparently > > >> I failed to explain the problem correctly. > > >> > > >> I’ll give more details: > > >> * You install a XAR extension that provides a ConfigurableClass (but > you > > >> don’t know that as a user) > > >> > > > > > > I would say that an application would need both and Entry Point (i.e. > > > homepage) > > > > I’d say this is optional. It would a pain to always mandate this. For > > example the LDAP Application only provides an Admin UI (it only helps to > > configure LDAP). > > > > So for me the entry point is another concept: it’s a link to a place > where > > the user should go to use the app. It can be pointing either to the app’s > > home page if there’s one, or the app’s Admin UI page. > > > > The goal of this thread is not to talk about home pages or Admin sections > > of extensions. It’s about discoverability and making it easy for users to > > start using any extension that is installed through the EM UI. > > > > AFAIU, we both agree on this :) > > What I wanted to point out was that an application/extension could also > provide its "settings", just like you have for Firefox addons, for example. > You should go to a list of installed extensions/apps (TBD) and see both a > way to access that extension/app, but also the way to configure it. IMO, we > should not reuse the entry point for configuration stuff (when there is no > UI, like the LDAP example). However, other apps/extensions could have both. > > IMO, it would be make more sense to talk about extensions here (i.e. at an > EM level), and not particularly about applications (i.e. along the lines of > Vincent's original suggestion). AFAIR, we now have extension categories. > Why bother with app panel UIXs or Application Descriptors, when EM already > provides all we need? We have the list of pages from EM and a way to > identify extensions that are of type "application". We now add the entry > point and the settings and we`re all good to go. It is up to the extension > to juggle the category, entry point and/or settings, if any of this applies > to it. > > Also, this would fit both EM's UI for an extension's details view, but also > the Application Index's listing of installed applications (which would just > be a listing only extensions of category "application", and maybe AWM apps > which are not extensions yet). > > No need to complicate things. > > -Eduard > > > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > but also an optional Configuration section (i.e. administration > > > section defined by either a ConfigurableClass entry or even something > > > custom). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Eduard > > > > > > > > >> * After you’ve installed that extension, as a user, you don’t know > what > > to > > >> do. You need to go read the doc for the app to understand where you > > need to > > >> go to start using it. > > >> > > >> So I’m really convinced we need something better than what we have > now. > > >> > > >> Now after we move the Applications UIXP to the > > xwiki-platform-applications > > >> module, we could add an “entrypoint’ property in the UIXP but that > would > > >> mean that the Extension Manager UI module would depend on > > >> xwiki-platform-applications. We would need to decide if it’s ok. I > > think it > > >> is since it can be considered as an application descriptor and I don’t > > see > > >> a problem of having the EM UI module know about application > descriptors. > > >> > > >> WDYT? > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> Vincent > > >> > > >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>> Hi devs, > > >>>> > > >>>> Problem > > >>>> ======= > > >>>> > > >>>> We have 2 issues right now when installing an extension in XWiki: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1) It’s not clear where is the entry point of that extension. > > >>>> - Example1: an app that is only for admins and only has a > > >> ConfigurableClass > > >>>> - Example2: an app that provides a macro and doesn’t have a UI > > >>>> > > >>>> 2) Even when an extension registers itself in the Applications > Panel, > > >> the user still need to refresh the page or navigate away to see it. > > >>>> > > >>>> Proposal > > >>>> ======== > > >>>> > > >>>> * Introduce the concept of Entry point (a.k.a home page) in > Extension > > >> metadata > > >>>> * Have the EM UI display the extension’s entry point (when there’s > > one) > > >> after having installed the extension so that the user can click on it > > and > > >> be taken to the home page of the extension. > > >>>> > > >>>> This would make extensions more discoverable IMO. > > >>>> > > >>>> Implementation Details > > >>>> ================== > > >>>> > > >>>> * Some maven extension metadata properties in pom.xml > > >>>> > > >>>> * A format to represent an entry point. It shouldn’t be a full URL > > >> since that needs to be computed at runtime. Basically it should > contain: > > >>>> ** The document reference > > >>>> ** The action to use (view, admin, etc) - optional, should default > to > > >> “view" > > >>>> ** The query string to use - optional, should default to an empty > > query > > >> string > > >>>> > > >>>> This corresponds to the notion of ResourceReference > > >> (EntityResourceReference to be precise). However we don’t have any > > textual > > >> representation of it ATM. > > >>>> > > >>>> WDYT? Good idea? Bad idea? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks > > >>>> -Vincent > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
