22 Sep
2011
22 Sep
'11
4:28 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Getting annotatations for the current page.
Then the solution is to invest in IX : making extension writter hack the UI
with javascript IS also making them second class citizens.
think
For me, and I repeat I speak only for bundled extensions (so apparently NOT
talking about workspaces here, but in a generic manner for bundled
extensions), building XE with extension that inject their content in JS is
also increasing technical debt. Maybe not the debt of XWiki Platform, but
the debt of XE.
Jerome
On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
added
elements
Well you didn't write the annotations extension (me neither, but I know what
it looks like). I guess you have to trust me on this :
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 22, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/21/2011 03:41 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Eddy and all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 21, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As part for the 3.2 Roadmap, the plan for the
workspaces feature
> was
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>> some hooks into the platform that could accept a
workspaces
>>> extension
>>>>> if
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> admin decided to install it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Without adding these hooks, there currently isn`t any
mechanism
>>> (like
>>>>>>>>> Interface Extensions, but not limited to that) that
allows a
> simple
>>>>>>>>> application to modify whatever it wishes (like user
profile
>>> sections,
>>>>>>>>> administration sections, top menu, etc.) so I went
ahead and >>>>> some
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>> into the platform that executes only when the
workspaces
extension
>>>>> (wiki
>>>>>>>>> pages and component/service) is installed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't like this too much for 2 reasons:
>>>>>>>> 1) the workspaces app is not part of the platform ATM. It
would
be
>>> like
>>>>>>> someone we don't know coding an application and sending
us a patch
> to
>>>>> modify
>>>>>>> the platform code to test if his own personal app is
installed or
> not
>>>>>>>> 2) it keeps adding kludges instead of finding a real
solution
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To help with point 1), we could vote the fact that
we're ok to
have
>>>>>>> workspaces in the
platform but that doesn't solve 2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could look at it point by point and find a solution
for each
>>> point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO ATM you should use jsx to add those entries so that
no change
> is
>>>>>>> required in the platform. I know some of you don't like
this
> solution
>>>>> but
>>>>>>> IMO the best right now when the application is not part of
the
>>> platform.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then we need to open a discussion for adding extension
points for
>>> each
>>>>>>> location where you need it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One solution would be to use XClasses to provide
extension
points.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Point 1: Ability to add User tabs. There are several ways
in
which
>>> this
>>>>>>> can be achieved.
>>>>>>>> Example solution: Introduce a UserTabClass and add as
many tabs
as
>>>>> there
>>>>>>> are UseTabClass objects in the wiki
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Point 2: Ability to add menu entries in the top level
menu.
>>>>>>>> Example solution: Have a MenuEntryClass and a
MenuItemEntryClass,
>>> each
>>>>>>> having 2 fields: one field for the menu entry name and one
for the
>>>>> position.
>>>>>>> The construct the menu dynamically
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue with these solutions is performance. A solution
would
be
> to
>>>>> add
>>>>>>> a module and have java listener listening to object changes +
an
API
>>> to
>>>>>>> return the data. However this maybe slightly too complex. BTW
it
> could
>>>>> be
>>>>>>> interesting to offer a generic script service to do this
(the
idea
>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> to offer an active cache that would refresh when an XObject
is
>>> updated).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course another solution would simply be to bite the
bullet and
>>> start
>>>>>>> implementing IX… ;) (I need to read again Sergiu's design
doc
about
> it
>>>>> since
>>>>>>> I have forgotten how Sergiu planned to implement it)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The major blocker for me is the raw velocity parsing done on
the
.vm
>>>>>>> templates. One step
forward would be to implement support for any
> kind
>>>>>>> of templates for generating the response, using the full
power of
> the
>>>>>>> rendering engine. But that's something for another
thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any other idea?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Accept Edy's patches as a temporary solution, pushing for
a proper
>>>>>>> cleanup in the next releases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know how urgent these changes are, we should
decide
together
>>> if
>>>>>>> it's OK to skip these changes for 3.2 and instead work on
a more
>>>>>>> flexible way of integrating them in 3.3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feature-wise, the work proposed by Edy is very good. In short,
it
> turns
>>>>> XEM
>>>>>> into a tool that can be used to easily manage wiki-based
communities,
>>>>> which
>>>>>> is a feature that I see users requesting a lot these days. People
I
>>> talk
>>>>>> with keep asking me about social and communities in XWiki and
I've
> seen
>>>>>> several workaround implementations on projects I'm involved
with
>>> already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus I'm very much in favor of making them available in XE
3.2,
>>>>> especially
>>>>>> given that Edy spent a lot of time working on them to have them
ready
>>> for
>>>>>> the release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that his solution is far from clean, but we're still
waiting
>>> for
>>>>> a
>>>>>> clean IX mechanism that I do not believe will be ready for 3.3.
Thus
>>> this
>>>>>> means that waiting for the IX mechanism to make the Workspaces
> feature
>>>>>> available would delay it by about 6 months. I'm not in favor
of
this
>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using jsx doesn't require any change in the platform. This means
that
> XE
>>>>> right now is compatible with the workspaces application. That's
the
>>> point
>>>>> and how extensions should be: independent of the platform (no hard
>>> links).
>>>>>
>>>>> So there's no issue of timeframe if Eddy is ok to use JSX.
>>>>>
>>>>> JSX is currently our clean solution for IX. There's no other way
ATM.
>>> This
>>>>> is how anyone adds UI elements cleanly to an existing XE (apart from
>>>>> modifying templates/pages but that's not clean since an upgrade
will
>>>>> overwrite those changes or at the very minimum you'll need to do
a
>>> merge).
>>>>>
>>>>> ATM I'm very strongly in favor of using JSX for this kind of
> integration
>>>>> (for extensions) till we propose a better IX solution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm -0 tending to -1 to advertise this as the clean way of
integrating
>>> such
>>>> feature. When you say this, the message I read is "you can do it if
you
>>> want
>>>> but your code will be awkward". Until we have IX, I prefer we accept
to
>>>> introduce hooks the way the
"forgot username/reset password
> application"
>>> is
>>>> built upon. At least the awkwardness is shared between the platform
and
>>> the
>>>> feature.
>>>
>>> So you're willing for everyone in the world to submit patches to
>>> xwiki-platform to ask us to add static hooks for their own
applications
> ?
>>> Now it's my turn to be -1 ;)
>>>
>>> Also it's not enough to give a -1 jerome, you need to have arguments
and
>>> explain why it's a problem...
>>>
>>
>> I didn't really gave -1 ; and I explained why I think it's bad.
>
> Could you explain again because I don't remember it and I don't see it
your
previous
email?
First, as I said, it makes the extension code awkward. Injecting UI from JavaScript might keep the platform code
clean, it makes the
extension
code dirty.
We have a lot of pages using JSX and I don't feel it's dirty.
That said what I don't find clean is that it means that extension are using
non-defined extension points and since those are not explicit extension
points we can break them at any time. So for me what we need to do with IX
is defined explicit extension points (equivalent of APIs in Java code for
ex).
As I said, if you have a lot of hooks on dom loaded event that are doing
complex stuff, like manipulating the DOM, AJAX response handlers, etc. it
will feel clumsy. You will perform actions on the page and the browser will
not respond immediatly as it will have a whole stack of DOM manipulation,
event handlers etc. to perform before.
I repeat myself : this is not something you can feel now because only the
annotations are doing that, but make it a lot of extensions like the
annotations I'm pretty sure it will be a different story.
Second, IMO if all (bundled) extensions were to
do this, you would have a
very clumsy page load, especially on low end machines running a
(relatively)
old browser. You would have a latency of couple
of seconds between the
time
you think the page is loaded and the time you can
actually interact with
the
page.
I think it's ok that extensions appear after the main page is loaded, as
they become available. I don't see a big issue with this.
Especially if
some of those extensions do perform AJAX requests, like
the annotations extension is doing right now.
What is this AJAX request doing for the annotation extension?
In my opinion this is bad, and
as much as possible the DOM sent to the browser should be complete (there
is
almost no extra cost to do such in comparison
with the initial cost of
the
HTTP request). Right now you don't feel it
because only annotations are
build this way. Make it 10+ such extensions on IE8 on a not so powerful
machine and you will feel it, I'm pretty sure.
All I'm saying is that right now JSX is the best IX implementation we have.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do better (we should!).
Hardcoding something is not an IX… it's just increasing our hacks and
augmenting our technical debt + it doesn't offer any solution for anyone not
being a committer to extend the XWiki platform for his own extension and I
don't think it's a good idea to consider extension writers second class
citizens if they're not committers…
>> I'm not talking about external
features. I think if we were to
integrate
>> workspaces, it would be a feature we
would advertise (application
> packaged
>> by default, mentionned in the release notes and all - am I wrong ?)
>
> ATM workspaces is not integrated. It's supposed to be an extension. No
vote
has been
sent to integrate it yet AFAIK.
OK, I didn't understand it like this, sorry about that. Indeed I don't it's good to have hooks for external
extensions. (my vision is: XE is the
product we ship right now, and it's ok to make sacrifices like we did for
forgot username/reset password application to make a better product)
In addition to what I've mentioned above, the problem jerome is that with
this reasoning we'll never progress and we'll keep increasing our technical
debt. Look at how many years have passed already on this and the progress
we've made… Answer: none. Why: because it's simpler to just add a hack than
to bit the bullet… ;)
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Jérôme Velociter
Winesquare
http://www.winesquare.net/
Jerome.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Jerome.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>>> Jerome
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>>> Guillaume
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I`ve created http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6991
with some
>>>>> details
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> what I have done and made a pull request at
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/pull/24 since
I did not
>>> want
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> rush
>>>>>>>>> at applying the changes without running them by you
guys.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I`ve broken the issue down to subtasks with separate
commits to
> make
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> review easier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There currently is a demo server for the workspaces
feature at
>>>>>>>>> http://wiki30-demo.xwiki.com but I will have to
update it
> tomorrow
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> latest version. Not much changed, you can see the
visible
changes
> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> specific jira subtasks (screenshots).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The goal would be for this to make it into 3.2 so
that people
> could
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> install (the soon to be released) workspaces
extension and try
it
>>> out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please take some time, if possible, to look over the
proposed
>>> changes
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> spot any problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Eduard
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs