Hi,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
We have a known issue with users starting with XWiki and reading
documentation on
xwiki.org and trying out stuff. Like yesterday morning
someone was following the SSX tutorial and couldn’t make it work. The issue
was that the page he was creating to put his SSX xobject in, had been
created as a non terminal page (our default) and the tutorial was telling
him to do: $xwiki.jsx.use(‘XWiki.SkinExt”)…
We’ll have this issue everywhere and starting with XWiki 7.4+ we’ve made
it very hard for users to start using the programming features of XWiki
because of this (without mentioning that having to suffix with “WebHome” is
not nice and natural).
So I was wondering if we could help our users with this. Here’s one idea:
* At the store API level (or just above in XWiki.getDocument()) do the
following:
** try to load the passed reference as is and if it exists return it
** if it doesn’t exist and the passed reference doesn’t end with
“WebHome", try to load the reference by adding “WebHome” to it
** if it doesn’t exist, return an empty doc (isNew = true) for the
original reference asked (to be as backward compatible as possible)
Just a reminder that this would not be consistent with what we do in the UI
(view mode URLs and untyped syntax link resolution), as in those cases we
default to a new non-terminal page instead.
What this means is that if a WebHome page exists it won’t be possible to
create a terminal page of the same name as its space by using getDocument().
There won’t be problems for existing duplicates (ie a space and a terminal
page named the same).
To solve this we could either introduce a new signature for getDocument()
or introduce a TerminalDocumentReference class (that extends
DocumentReference) and that the current getDocument() would understand as
wanting a terminal document (we could use another name).
And thus we could use the new TerminalDocumentReference class for example
in the Create Page UI when the “terminal” checkbox is checked, thus
allowing users to be able to create both types for the same name.
I have the feeling that the small downside is really small compared to the
advantages it would offer. For example it would solve the issue we have now
with using a reference in macro. For example: {{include
reference=“A.B.C.Mypage”/}} would work when MyPage is a NestedPage (i.e.
A.B.C.MyPage.WebHome).
WDYT?
Not sure we should cross this line, at the current state that we are. I
personally find it easier to explain it that the UI does this "trick", but
the platform works with what you give it, instead of having to explain all
the new tricks from the platform as well (which will eventually probably
turn into "pitfalls").
Thanks,
Eduard
Thanks
-Vincent
PS: Related to this is
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/
bin/view/Proposal/DeprecatingSpaceAndSpaceReference but that’s a lot more
complex to implement and not for just now. The goal of this mail is to
brainstorm about what we can do now.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs