24 Jun
2015
24 Jun
'15
7:45 a.m.
On 23 Jun 2015 at 17:44:01, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
(valicac@gmail.com(mailto:valicac@gmail.com)) wrote:
Hi devs,
So after discussing the topic of Nested in several mails, we need to reach
a conclusion in order to start implementing.
There are several open questions that I will summarize. Please cast your
votes in order to advance on some topics and maybe discover what we still
need to agree on.
Q0. **Nested Spaces in model**
No matter the UI decisions we still need to take, we are implementing
Nested Spaces for 7.2 roadmap. The future is still uncertain regarding
changing the model to accommodate Nested Documents, since we can simulate
ND using NS.
Already decided, +1
Q1. **NS vs ND in the UI**
Q1.1 The majority agreed that since the final purpose are ND, we should
display ND in the UI, since it simplifies the mental model of the user.
This implies removing the Space concept from the UI.
Already decided, +1
Q1.1.1 A consequence is hiding the 'WebHome'
name in the UI.
Already decided, +1
Q1.2 Although the default should be ND, the question
is if we want to give
the option to display NS in the UI. This would be implemented as an
advanced and technical option. The main problem is that we might need to
provide UI alternatives for several components (menus, create step, etc.)
-0 but would like to have Anca’s opinion on the related thread.
Q2. **Parent/Child**
Q2.1 Deprecate the notion of Parent/Child.
+1 because it’s too confusing to have both the NS and Parent/Child so one has to go away
and since we’ve agreed on NS, it has to be Parent/Child going away.
Note that deprecating doesn’t mean removing it! It just tells users that they need to move
away from it over time as it’s no longer the way to do it.
Q2.1.1 Provide a migration to transform the relation
into NS/ND. Problem:
the old URLs[A] (bookmarks) are broken + the user is stuck with long
URLs[B] if he wants to keep the hierarchy. Additionally we might need to
provide an extension/configuration to transform into short URLs [B -> C].
+1, we need to help users migrate from Parent/Child to NS anyway since we’ve agreed about
NS. However this is not au automated migration; it would be some scripts that users can
run if they want to.
Q2.1.2 Don't migrate: the parent/child hierarchy
will be lost but the old
URLs[A] (bookmarks) will be kept. The user needs to use NS/ND to create
hierarchies.
Q2.2 Don't deprecate the notion of Parent/Child.
-0 as I said it’s too confusing to have both at the same time and we can only have 1
breadcrumb at a time!
Q2.2.1 Provide a configuration in the Administration
to switch the
breadcrumbs between displaying Parent/Child or NS/ND. We might need to
provide UI alternatives for several components (tree, breadcrumb
navigation, create, etc.)
+1 to let users time to migrate.
I don’t agree with the reasoning of “let’s keep parent/child and have NS at the same
time”. It’s just too confusing and we’ll need to fix this before we can consider the
feature finished anyway (like having a breadcrumb based on NS).
I’m fine to do it later in 7.2 but IMO it has to be done un 7.2 because we don’t want
*new* users to start using parent/child relationship once NS is implemented.
We have to bite the bullet and better sooner than later.
Thanks
-Vincent
Please cast your votes / add comments.
Thank you,
Caty