On this subject, while showing 7.3 in an internal meeting, we saw that the
Data page/space is the parent of all content pages in an AWM, but does not
actually exist, so in the breadcrumb if you click on "Data" you get an
error.
Ludovic
--*Ludovic Dubost*
*Founder and CEO*
ludovic(a)xwiki.com
skype: ldubost
Blog:
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
Hi Anca,
On 14 Nov 2015 at 10:57:24, Marius Dumitru Florea (
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com) wrote:
Hi Anca,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Anca Luca <lucaa(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hello all,
my 2 cents on the "Data" or "Entries" subspace.
( But too late, since I see the issue was already closed :( )
Thanks for taking
the time to participate.
> I'm afraid that, even if technically it seems like a nice idea, it's
not
that nice
for a "regular non-developer user" which perceive an
application
as only having data.
> They don't need to and won't know that the code of
> that application is also stored on the wiki, in another subspace that
is
called
"Code".
The Code space is still hidden so a regular user doesn't see it. There's
no
change in this regard.
There is complaint about the size and the amount
of bloat in
the XWiki URLS (the /xwiki/bin/view/ part) and this would be an extra
one,
> for the case of applications. I don't think url rewrite should be
> considered so easily as an option because it's technically not so easy
to
achieve
and I think that there can be an issue with colision (e.g.
between
MyApp/WebPreferences and
MyApp/Data/WebPreferences).
So you think having MyApp and MyAppCode is better?
You need to read the whole discussion thread and see that we’ve discussed
about what you said already and we’ve weighted pros and cons to decide in
the end that all things considered the Code and Data subspaces were
probably the best solution.
If you think they are not, please make a proposal
that you think would be
better (ideally taking into account the arguments that we’ve already
discussed) and we can discuss updating what’s been already done.
Actually, I read the discussion and I re-read it now. And, depending on how
the "delete application data" is implemented (IIRC In the UI now) we could
more go for detailed delete options (by default and in the app withim
minutes itself). All the arguments that were brought in the discussion are
correct, I just think that in some of them the 80-20 rule was wrongly
estimated:
* deleting a whole application data is frequent, but not _that_ frequent
(20%).
* it was said that a url rewrite should be doable (people really bothered
by the Data particle should be able to do it). No, it's not that easy (less
than 20% of the people bothered by the Data particle can do it).
* less than 20% of usecases have an application within minutes that has two
data spaces. Actually, I am wondering how is that an app within minutes
still, because out of my knowledge this is not a known feature of app
within minutes, and it means that some customization has been done to that
application. For me, if an application was customized, it's still an
application but not "within minutes" anymore.
* if we're talking about applications in general, I think just as frequent
is the case when the same application has multiple data spaces (e.g. having
multiple blogs, each in a different space, in a different point in the
hierarchy). Having multiple subspaces in the application space would not
help much in this case.
* for the rights issue, in 80% of the cases the code authors are data
authors as well, there are just additional rights on the code (sub) space,
so it's normal that code space inherits from app space.
* deleting a space without some of its subspaces is a larger problem than
app within minutes, so a more generic solution for that could be
interesting. Also, I think it would be a frequent problem (80%), so having
a flexible solution for it can be interesting.
Actually, the only thing on which I have a doubt that it would affect 80%
of the usecases is the Data particle itself in the url :) (maybe more like
50-50 :D) . However, from the discussions in the thread I kind of had the
feeling that it being annoying is considered to fall in the 20% bucket,
compared to the other arguments which would be 80. I have the opposite
feeling, as I explained above in the bullet list.
It's a good thing that it's configurable, though.
In what concerns the more generic topic of best practices: In the cases of
larger customizations that I met so far (on non-nested spaces, though), the
isolation was much more important: all the code for all the applications
and all the customizations is in one space, in order to be able to manage
it together as a group (rights, UI settings, deployment, search, etc),
while the data was spread around in spaces that are dedicated exclusively
to data, potentially more data spaces for all the different areas of
applications coded by that code. Note that this would not fit in the case
of a standard app within minutes anyway. I haven't thought yet about how
this strategy would adapt for nested spaces, if each code space should be
nested under its application space or still keep it all isolated...
Thanks,
Anca
But I guess this is really too late now...
It’ s not too late. This was done recently and we can still tune things
if
there’s a better proposal.
The location where the application stores its data is configurable.
What we need (and the topic of this thread) is a best practice, ie.
what’s
used by default. We want apps by default to use
these best practices,
even
if they’re configurable (that should be the
exception). So it would be
nice
to have Anca and all the devs on this list to
agree to use the best
practices :)
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Marius
Thanks,
Anca
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <
gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Why not using "Entries" instead of "Data" for the name? It will
be
shown
> > both in the URL and in the breadcrumb, and fit with most of the
> use-cases.
> >
> > Users can still change the title of the "Entries" space to have a
more
specific name such as "Ideas",
"Meetings", etc...
Just my 2 cents.
2015-10-26 10:45 GMT+01:00 Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com>gt;:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar <
> c.robbenhaar(a)espresto.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie"
Delhumeau <
> > > > gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 2015-09-30 10:58 GMT+02:00 vincent(a)massol.net <
vincent(a)massol.net
> >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 30 Sep 2015 at 10:53:48, Thomas Mortagne (
> > > thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> > > > >>> (mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> I think what I like best is some option in the
refactoring
API
> to
> > > > >>>> indicate that you want to delete only final
documents in the
> space
> > > (so
> > > > >>>> skipping space home page and spaces).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That could be interesting for some use cases but it’s
risky
for
> > this
> > > > one.
> > > > >>> Several apps may generate terminal pages and users could
create
> > > > terminal
> > > > >>> pages in app spaces too. So that would not just remove
the
app
> > > > technical
> > > > >>> pages, it could remove more.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The idea of Thomas is an option to only delete *terminal*
pages
> > > located
> > > > in
> > > > >> the space with a depth of 1. Said differently, the direct
and
> > terminal
> > > > >> children of the page.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This way, you can delete all data located in the space
without
> > > removing
> > > > the
> > > > >> code (because the code would be located in a deeper depth),
but
it
> > > works
> > > > >> only if the app generates data as terminal pages. It is the
case
> > right
> > > > now,
> > > > >> but new apps should work differently and create their data
as
> > regular
> > > > >> Nested Pages.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't agree at all on this later statement. New apps _may_
work
> > > > > differently and create
nested pages, but it _should_ not.
> > > > > Anyway, this is why I am wondering about properly separating
> WebHome,
> > > > Code
> > > > > and Data.
> > > > > I do not think we need stable names, but the structure matter.
If
>
Data
> > > does
> > > > not look nice, you may leave apps decide for themselves, the
rules
> > > being
> > > > > put your data in subspaces, and code in the Code subspace, or
> > something
> > > > > like that. Please note that using "space" in the
previous rules
> looks
> > > bad
> > > > > to me, since we do not have space anymore ;)
> > > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Just another random thought: some applications might really want
to
> > have
> > > > two "data" spaces;
> > > > for example currently in the blog you cannot have a category and
a
blog
> > post with the same name.
> > If both end up in their respective "subfolders"
"Blog.Posts" and
> > "Blog.Categories", the problem goes away.
> >
>
> Indeed, but I don't think it contradicts the rule. IMO the best
practice
> > should be to group the application data in one or more subspaces
under
> > the
> > > application space. If the application generates only one type of
data
>
(e.g.
> > Events) then it makes sense to have only one Data subspace. If the
> > application generates two or more types of data (Categories and
Posts)
then
> it may need more subspaces. The only question is whether we should
group
> these subspaces under a Data subspace, e.g.
>
> App / Data / Categories
>
> or leave them directly under the application space:
>
> App / Categories
>
> I prefer the second option.
>
> Another thing to decide is whether the Data space should be named
"Data"
> or
> > some domain-specific name. Considering that we can set the title of
the
> > home page to anything we want, I prefer
to use "Data" as name, so
that
> the
> > code deals with a generic "Data" space, even though the user sees
> "Events"
> > in the breadcrumbs.
> >
> >
> > > On the other hand if the application pages end up directly inside
the
> > main
> > > page, then e.g. you cannot have a category "Code" in the Blog.
> > > (You cannot have a blog post with it either, but that might be a
> smaller
> > > nuisance)
> > >
> >
> > Good point, and another reason to group the application data in
nested
> > spaces under the application space.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Marius
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs