26 Nov
2015
26 Nov
'15
3:55 p.m.
Hi Devs,
after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what was the
point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't see a good
reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas it poses
some issues:
- There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and nested pages
in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL, which would be cleaner to
remove)
- We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page in wiki
syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
- When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating a
sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user expectation (and the
breadcrumb)
- For AWM applications, data/content pages are created as terminal
pages, which makes it impossible to add further content underneath them in
the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
- To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal page
into a nested page should the need arise later on
- However, I don't see any problem from a page being a nested page
instead of being a terminal page
In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand they're an
artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they really make sense
now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not remove the
ability to create new ones even for admins.
Am I missing something obvious?
Thanks,
Guillaume
27 Nov
27 Nov
12:40 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge <guillaume(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Hi Devs,
after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what was the
point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't see a good
reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas it poses
some issues:
- There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and nested pages
in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL, which would be cleaner
to
remove)
- We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page in wiki
syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
- When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating a
sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user expectation (and
the
breadcrumb)
- For AWM applications, data/content pages are
created as terminal
pages, which makes it impossible to add further content underneath them
in
the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
- To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal page
into a nested page should the need arise later on
See http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html
- However, I don't see any problem from a page
being a nested page
instead of being a terminal page
In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand they're an
artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they really make sense
now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not remove the
ability to create new ones even for admins.
Am I missing something obvious?
Thanks,
Guillaume
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
2:25 p.m.
Hi Marius,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
<guillaume(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but are they really
*needed*?
My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for no obvious
benefit.
Guillaume
Hi Devs,
after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what was the
point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't see a good
reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas it poses
some issues:
- There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and nested
pages
in the interface (besides "WebHome"
in the URL, which would be cleaner
to
remove)
- We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page in
wiki
syntax without having to write
"WebHome" in it
- When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating a
sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user expectation
(and
the
breadcrumb)
- For AWM applications, data/content pages are
created as terminal
pages, which makes it impossible to add further content underneath
them
in
the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
- To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal page
into a nested page should the need arise later on
See http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html - However,
I don't see any problem from a page being a nested page
instead of being a terminal page
In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand they're
an
artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do
they really make sense
now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not remove the
ability to create new ones even for admins.
Am I missing something obvious?
Thanks,
Guillaume
_______________________________________________
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 
2:29 p.m.
On 27 Nov 2015 at 14:25:17, Guillaume Lerouge
(guillaume@xwiki.com(mailto:guillaume@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hi Marius,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the UI (Nested Pages) and
the Model (Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a design to explore what options we have to
remove the concept of Spaces in the model and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s
going to be tough to not break everything but need to explore it to know our options.
I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m not sure why you think
we should remove it completely from the UI. Why do you fear that it’s too advanced for
advanced users?
Thanks
-Vincent
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume
Lerouge
wrote:
Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but are they really
*needed*?
My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for no obvious
benefit. Hi Devs,
after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what was the
point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't see a good
reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas it poses
some issues:
- There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and nested
pages
in the interface (besides "WebHome" in
the URL, which would be cleaner
to
remove)
- We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page in
wiki
syntax without having to write
"WebHome" in it
- When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating a
sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user expectation
(and
the
breadcrumb)
- For AWM applications, data/content pages are
created as terminal
pages, which makes it impossible to add further content underneath
them
in
the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
- To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal page
into a nested page should the need arise later on
See http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html Guillaume
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-
However, I don't see any problem from a page being a nested page
instead of being a terminal page
In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand they're
an
artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do
they really make sense
now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not remove the
ability to create new ones even for admins.
Am I missing something obvious?
Thanks,
Guillaume
_______________________________________________
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
4:42 p.m.
Hi,
Hi Marius,
Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but are they really
2 reasons:
*1/ Practical reason:* as a simple user, if I go to a terminal page and
create a page from there, I will create a sibling to the current page
instead of a child to the current page. I will not know why it happened
like this, nor will I have the ability to change it.
*2/ Philosophical reason:* why keep something useless if we could as well
remove it? That would be an application of Ockham's razor principle if you
will.
Thanks,
Guillaume
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Devs,
> >
> > after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what
was
the
> > point of even allowing terminal pages
to exists. I couldn't see a
good
> > reason why any given page would *need*
to be terminal, whereas it
poses
> > some issues:
> >
> > - There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and nested
> pages
> > in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL, which would be
cleaner
to
remove)
- We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page in
wiki
syntax without having to write
"WebHome" in it
- When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating a
sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user expectation
(and
the
breadcrumb)
- For AWM applications, data/content pages are
created as terminal
pages, which makes it impossible to add further content underneath
them
in
the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
- To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal page
into a nested page should the need arise later on
See http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html *needed*?
My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for no
obvious
benefit.
What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the UI
(Nested Pages) and the Model (Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a design to
explore what options we have to remove the concept of Spaces in the model
and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s going to be tough to not break
everything but need to explore it to know our options.
I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m not
sure why you think we should remove it completely from the UI. Why do you
fear that it’s too advanced for advanced users?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Guillaume
> > - However, I don't see any problem from a page being a nested page
> > instead of being a terminal page
> >
> > In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand
they're
> an
> > artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they really make
sense
now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but
not remove the
ability to create new ones even for admins.
Am I missing something obvious?
Thanks,
Guillaume
_______________________________________________
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
4:53 p.m.
On 27 Nov 2015 at 16:42:39, Guillaume Lerouge
(guillaume@xwiki.com(mailto:guillaume@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hi,
Right now users can already create sibling pages when they click the Add button on a
page.
It would be easy to add a small warning when you’re on a terminal page and you click Add
to mention that this is a terminal page that cannot have children.
Hi Marius,
really
2 reasons:
*1/ Practical reason:* as a simple user, if I go to a terminal page and
create a page from there, I will create a sibling to the current page
instead of a child to the current page. I will not know why it happened
like this, nor will I have the ability to change it.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Devs,
> >
> > after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what
was
the
> > point of even allowing terminal pages
to exists. I couldn't see a
good
> > reason why any given page would *need*
to be terminal, whereas it
poses
> > some issues:
> >
> > - There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and nested
> pages
> > in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL, which would be
cleaner
> to
> remove)
> - We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page in
wiki
> syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
> - When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating a
> sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user expectation
(and
> the
> breadcrumb)
>
> - For AWM applications, data/content pages are created as terminal
> pages, which makes it impossible to add further content underneath
them
> in
> the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
> - To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal page
> into a nested page should the need arise later on
>
See http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html
Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but are they *needed*?
My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for no
obvious
benefit.
What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the UI
(Nested Pages) and the Model (Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a design to
explore what options we have to remove the concept of Spaces in the model
and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s going to be tough to not break
everything but need to explore it to know our options.
I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m not
sure why you think we should remove it completely from the UI. Why do you
fear that it’s too advanced for advanced users?
*2/ Philosophical reason:* why keep something useless
if we could as well
remove it? That would be an application of Ockham's razor principle if you
will.
It’s not useless. As I mentioned this is still in the model and we still support it. This
means that we need a way for advanced users to be able to create those pages (and using a
script to do so is worse than having a nice UI for it).
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Guillaume
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> > Guillaume
> >
> >
> > > > - However, I don't see any problem from a page being a nested
page
> > > > instead of being a terminal page
> > > >
> > > > In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand
> they're
> > > an
> > > > artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they really make
> sense
> > > > now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not remove
the
> > > > ability to create new ones even for admins.
> > > >
> > > > Am I missing something obvious?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Guillaume
5:06 p.m.
Hi Vincent,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
On 27 Nov 2015 at 16:42:39, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com(mailto:
guillaume(a)xwiki.com)) wrote:
Right now users can already create sibling pages when they click the Add
button on a page.
It would be easy to add a small warning when you’re on a terminal page and
you click Add to mention that this is a terminal page that cannot have
children.
Right, a warning to simple users that something different than what they
expect is going to happen for a reason that they cannot fathom to begin
with since they don't even know about terminal pages in the first place.
It's a bit like telling them:
*- XWiki: You can't create a child page from here!*
*- User: But, why?*
*- XWiki: Because!*
*- User: uh...*
It only compounds the problem.
Hi,
> Hi Marius,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
> > mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Devs,
> > > >
> > > > after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what
> was the
> > > > point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't see
a
> good
> > > > reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas it
> poses
> > > > some issues:
> > > >
> > > > - There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and
nested
> > > pages
> > > > in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL, which would
be
> cleaner
> > > > to
> > > > remove)
> > > > - We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page
in
> > > wiki
> > > > syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
> > > > - When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating
a
> > > > sibling instead of a child
page, which breaks the user
expectation
> > > (and
> > > > the
> > > > breadcrumb)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > - For AWM applications, data/content pages are created as
terminal
> > > > pages, which makes it
impossible to add further content
underneath
> > > them
> > > > in
> > > > the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
> > > > - To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal
page
> > > > into a nested page should the
need arise later on
> > > >
> > >
> > > See
http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html
> >
> >
> > Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but are they
> really
> > *needed*?
> >
> > My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for no
> obvious
> > benefit.
>
>
> What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the UI
> (Nested Pages) and the Model (Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a
design to
> explore what options we have to remove the
concept of Spaces in the
model
> and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s
going to be tough to not
break
> everything but need to explore it to know
our options.
>
> I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m not
> sure why you think we should remove it completely from the UI. Why do
you
fear that
it’s too advanced for advanced users?
2 reasons:
*1/ Practical reason:* as a simple user, if I go to a terminal page and
create a page from there, I will create a sibling to the current page
instead of a child to the current page. I will not know why it happened
like this, nor will I have the ability to change it. *2/ Philosophical reason:* why keep something useless
if we could as well
I have the feeling we're running in circles here. Just because terminal
pages still exist in the model doesn't tell me *why* they're still needed
for the future.
Do you have specific use cases in mind where it's *better* for an user (or
a script!) to create a terminal page rather than a nested page? Does it
lead to performance improvements of some sort? Does it prevent backwards
compatibility issues that would be caused by switching all pages to nested
pages? Any other *benefits* from having terminal pages?
Thanks,
Guillaume
remove it? That would be an application of
Ockham's razor principle if
you
will.
It’s not useless. As I mentioned this is still in the model and we still
support it. This means that we need a way for advanced users to be able to
create those pages (and using a script to do so is worse than having a nice
UI for it).
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Guillaume
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> > Guillaume
> >
> >
> > > > - However, I don't see any problem from a page being a nested
page
> > > > instead of being a terminal
page
> > > >
> > > > In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand
> they're
> > > an
> > > > artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they really
make
> sense
> > > > now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not
remove the
> > > > ability to create new ones
even for admins.
> > > >
> > > > Am I missing something obvious?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Guillaume
5:10 p.m.
On 27 Nov 2015 at 17:06:17, Guillaume Lerouge
(guillaume@xwiki.com(mailto:guillaume@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
I could list use cases (like some cases where it doesn’t make sense to have nested pages -
like WebPreferences for example - Actually check a filesystem, you can’t create a subfile
inside a file after all, I think users understand that) but anyway it doesn’t matter. The
simple fact that we have terminal pages in lots of extensions require that the user be
able to create terminal pages.
Imagine that someone deletes a terminal page by error and you need to recreate it. You
need a way to do that or your extension is not going to work.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 27 Nov 2015 at 16:42:39, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com(mailto:
guillaume(a)xwiki.com)) wrote:
Right now users can already create sibling pages when they click the Add
button on a page.
It would be easy to add a small warning when you’re on a terminal page and
you click Add to mention that this is a terminal page that cannot have
children.
Right, a warning to simple users that something different than what they
expect is going to happen for a reason that they cannot fathom to begin
with since they don't even know about terminal pages in the first place.
It's a bit like telling them:
*- XWiki: You can't create a child page from here!*
*- User: But, why?*
*- XWiki: Because!*
*- User: uh...*
It only compounds the problem.
Hi,
> Hi Marius,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
> > mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Devs,
> > > >
> > > > after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what
> was the
> > > > point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't see
a
> good
> > > > reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas it
> poses
> > > > some issues:
> > > >
> > > > - There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and
nested
> > > pages
> > > > in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL, which would
be
> cleaner
> > > > to
> > > > remove)
> > > > - We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page
in
> > > wiki
> > > > syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
> > > > - When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating
a
> > > > sibling instead of a child
page, which breaks the user
expectation
> > > (and
> > > > the
> > > > breadcrumb)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > - For AWM applications, data/content pages are created as
terminal
> > > > pages, which makes it
impossible to add further content
underneath
> > > them
> > > > in
> > > > the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
> > > > - To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal
page
> > > > into a nested page should the
need arise later on
> > > >
> > >
> > > See
http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html
> >
> >
> > Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but are they
> really
> > *needed*?
> >
> > My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for no
> obvious
> > benefit.
>
>
> What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the UI
> (Nested Pages) and the Model (Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a
design to
> explore what options we have to remove the
concept of Spaces in the
model
> and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s
going to be tough to not
break
> everything but need to explore it to know
our options.
>
> I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m not
> sure why you think we should remove it completely from the UI. Why do
you
fear that
it’s too advanced for advanced users?
2 reasons:
*1/ Practical reason:* as a simple user, if I go to a terminal page and
create a page from there, I will create a sibling to the current page
instead of a child to the current page. I will not know why it happened
like this, nor will I have the ability to change it. *2/ Philosophical reason:* why keep something
useless if we could as well
I have the feeling we're running in circles here. Just because terminal
pages still exist in the model doesn't tell me *why* they're still needed
for the future.
Do you have specific use cases in mind where it's *better* for an user (or
a script!) to create a terminal page rather than a nested page? Does it
lead to performance improvements of some sort? Does it prevent backwards
compatibility issues that would be caused by switching all pages to nested
pages? Any other *benefits* from having terminal pages? remove it? That would be an application of
Ockham's razor principle if
you
will.
It’s not useless. As I mentioned this is still in the model and we still
support it. This means that we need a way for advanced users to be able to
create those pages (and using a script to do so is worse than having a nice
UI for it).
Thanks,
Guillaume
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Guillaume
> >
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Vincent
> > >
> > > > Guillaume
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > - However, I don't see any problem from a page being a
nested
> page
> > > > > > instead of being a terminal page
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I
understand
> > > they're
> > > > > an
> > > > > > artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they
really
> make
> > > sense
> > > > > > now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not
> remove the
> > > > > > ability to create new ones even for admins.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am I missing something obvious?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guillaume
5:27 p.m.
I can't imagine how I would attempt to explain a terminal (but not meaning it's
going to die soon)
page to someone who doesn't know the insides of the sausage factory.
Every page is like a file, and it's also like a folder because it can have pages
inside of it,
except for the ones that can't...
So +1 that users should never see/create/edit these weird pages which cannot have
children.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 27/11/15 17:10, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
On 27 Nov 2015 at 17:06:17, Guillaume Lerouge
(guillaume@xwiki.com(mailto:guillaume@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
I could list use cases (like some cases where it doesn’t make sense to have nested pages
- like WebPreferences for example - Actually check a filesystem, you can’t create a
subfile inside a file after all, I think users understand that) but anyway it doesn’t
matter. The simple fact that we have terminal pages in lots of extensions require that the
user be able to create terminal pages.
Imagine that someone deletes a terminal page by error and you need to recreate it. You
need a way to do that or your extension is not going to work.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 27 Nov 2015 at 16:42:39, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com(mailto:
guillaume(a)xwiki.com)) wrote:
Right, a warning to simple users that something different than what they
expect is going to happen for a reason that they cannot fathom to begin
with since they don't even know about terminal pages in the first place.
It's a bit like telling them:
*- XWiki: You can't create a child page from here!*
*- User: But, why?*
*- XWiki: Because!*
*- User: uh...*
It only compounds the problem.
Hi,
> Hi Marius,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Devs,
>>>>
>>>> after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what
> was the
>>>> point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't see a
> good
>>>> reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas it
> poses
>>>> some issues:
>>>>
>>>> - There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and
nested
>>> pages
>>>> in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL, which would be
> cleaner
>>>> to
>>>> remove)
>>>> - We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page
in
>>> wiki
>>>> syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
>>>> - When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating
a
>>>> sibling instead of a child page,
which breaks the user
expectation
>>> (and
>>>> the
>>>> breadcrumb)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - For AWM applications, data/content pages are created as
terminal
>>>> pages, which makes it impossible
to add further content
underneath
>>> them
>>>> in
>>>> the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
>>>> - To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal
page
>>>> into a nested page should the
need arise later on
>>>>
>>>
>>> See
http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html
>>
>>
>> Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but are they
> really
>> *needed*?
>>
>> My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for no
> obvious
>> benefit.
>
>
> What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the UI
> (Nested Pages) and the Model (Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a
design to
> explore what options we have to remove the
concept of Spaces in the
model
> and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s
going to be tough to not
break
> everything but need to explore it to know our
options.
>
> I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m not
> sure why you think we should remove it completely from the UI. Why do
you
> fear that it’s too advanced for advanced
users?
>
2 reasons:
*1/ Practical reason:* as a simple user, if I go to a terminal page and
create a page from there, I will create a sibling to the current page
instead of a child to the current page. I will not know why it happened
like this, nor will I have the ability to change it.
Right now users can already create sibling pages when they click the Add
button on a page.
It would be easy to add a small warning when you’re on a terminal page and
you click Add to mention that this is a terminal page that cannot have
children.
*2/ Philosophical reason:* why keep something
useless if we could as well
I have the feeling we're running in circles here. Just because terminal
pages still exist in the model doesn't tell me *why* they're still needed
for the future.
Do you have specific use cases in mind where it's *better* for an user (or
a script!) to create a terminal page rather than a nested page? Does it
lead to performance improvements of some sort? Does it prevent backwards
compatibility issues that would be caused by switching all pages to nested
pages? Any other *benefits* from having terminal pages? remove it? That would be an application of
Ockham's razor principle if
you
will.
It’s not useless. As I mentioned this is still in the model and we still
support it. This means that we need a way for advanced users to be able to
create those pages (and using a script to do so is worse than having a nice
UI for it).
Thanks,
Guillaume
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>>> Guillaume
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> - However, I don't see any problem from a page being a
nested
> page
>>>>>> instead of being a terminal page
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand
>>> they're
>>>>> an
>>>>>> artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they really
> make
>>> sense
>>>>>> now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not
> remove the
>>>>>> ability to create new ones even for admins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I missing something obvious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guillaume
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
15 Dec
15 Dec
9:23 p.m.
Hi Devs,
another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new user who
was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a number of pages as terminal pages.
Then he tried to move some pages from their existing location to another
location, using the tree.
Unfortunately, several times, when trying to drop the page under an
existing page, a "cancel" icon was displayed when he tried to click on the
"Select" button. Of course the reason was that he was trying to drop his
page under a terminal page, but there was no explanation about this in the
UI. It also took me a while to figure things out :-)
All in all that was a very frustrating experience to watch. To me, that's
another reason why I think we should really look at how we could deprecate
terminal pages. I see them being the source of many misunderstandings and
additional issues like this one.
Thanks,
Guillaume
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd(a)cjdns.fr> wrote:
I can't imagine how I would attempt to explain a
terminal (but not meaning
it's going to die soon)
page to someone who doesn't know the insides of the sausage factory.
Every page is like a file, and it's also like a folder because it can have
pages inside of it,
except for the ones that can't...
So +1 that users should never see/create/edit these weird pages which
cannot have children.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 27/11/15 17:10, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
On 27 Nov 2015 at 17:06:17, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com
(mailto:guillaume@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hi Vincent,
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
I could list use cases (like some cases where it doesn’t make sense to
have nested pages - like WebPreferences for example - Actually check a
filesystem, you can’t create a subfile inside a file after all, I think
users understand that) but anyway it doesn’t matter. The simple fact that
we have terminal pages in lots of extensions require that the user be able
to create terminal pages.
Imagine that someone deletes a terminal page by error and you need to
recreate it. You need a way to do that or your extension is not going to
work.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
On 27 Nov 2015 at 16:42:39, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com
(mailto:
guillaume(a)xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hi,
>
> Hi Marius,
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what
>>>>>
>>>> was the
>>
>>> point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't see a
>>>>>
>>>> good
>>
>>> reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas it
>>>>>
>>>> poses
>>
>>> some issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> - There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and
>>>>>
>>>> nested
> pages
>>>>
>>>>> in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL, which would
be
>>>>>
>>>> cleaner
>>
>>> to
>>>>> remove)
>>>>> - We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page
>>>>>
>>>> in
> wiki
>>>>
>>>>> syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
>>>>> - When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating
>>>>>
>>>> a
> sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user
>>>>>
>>>> expectation
> (and
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> breadcrumb)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - For AWM applications, data/content pages are created as
>>>>>
>>>> terminal
> pages, which makes it impossible to add further content
>>>>>
>>>> underneath
> them
>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>> the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
>>>>> - To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal
>>>>>
>>>> page
> into a nested page should the need arise later on
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> See
>>>>
>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html
>
>>>
>>> Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but are they
>>>
>> really
>>
>>> *needed*?
>>>
>>> My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for no
>>>
>> obvious
>>
>>> benefit.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the UI
>> (Nested Pages) and the Model (Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a
>>
> design to
> explore what options we have to remove the concept of Spaces in the
>>
> model
> and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s going to be tough to not
>>
> break
> everything but need to explore it to know our options.
>>
>> I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m
>> not
>> sure why you think we should remove it completely from the UI. Why do
>>
> you
> fear that it’s too advanced for advanced users?
>>
>>
> 2 reasons:
>
> *1/ Practical reason:* as a simple user, if I go to a terminal page and
> create a page from there, I will create a sibling to the current page
> instead of a child to the current page. I will not know why it happened
> like this, nor will I have the ability to change it.
>
Right now users can already create sibling pages when they click the Add
button on a page.
It would be easy to add a small warning when you’re on a terminal page
and
you click Add to mention that this is a terminal page that cannot have
children.
Right, a warning to simple users that something different than what they
expect is going to happen for a reason that they cannot fathom to begin
with since they don't even know about terminal pages in the first place.
It's a bit like telling them:
*- XWiki: You can't create a child page from here!*
*- User: But, why?*
*- XWiki: Because!*
*- User: uh...*
It only compounds the problem.
*2/ Philosophical reason:* why keep something useless if we could as well
> remove it? That would be an application of Ockham's razor principle if
>
you
> will.
>
It’s not useless. As I mentioned this is still in the model and we still
support it. This means that we need a way for advanced users to be able
to
create those pages (and using a script to do so is worse than having a
nice
UI for it).
I have the feeling we're running in circles here. Just because terminal
pages still exist in the model doesn't tell me *why* they're still needed
for the future.
Do you have specific use cases in mind where it's *better* for an user
(or
a script!) to create a terminal page rather than a nested page? Does it
lead to performance improvements of some sort? Does it prevent backwards
compatibility issues that would be caused by switching all pages to
nested
pages? Any other *benefits* from having terminal pages?
Guillaume
Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> Thanks,
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>> Guillaume
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - However, I don't see any problem from a page being a nested
>>>>>>
>>>>> page
>
>> instead of being a terminal page
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand
>>>>>>
>>>>> they're
>>>
>>>> an
>>>>>
>>>>>> artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they really
>>>>>>
>>>>> make
>
>> sense
>>>
>>>> now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not
>>>>>>
>>>>> remove the
>
>> ability to create new ones even for admins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I missing something obvious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guillaume
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
devs mailing
list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
16 Dec
16 Dec
7:14 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Guillaume Lerouge <guillaume(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Hi Devs,
another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new user who
was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a number of pages as terminal pages.
Did he use the default Admin profile (which is configured as advanced) or
did he register a new profile (which is not advanced unless you configure
it explicitly)? The default Admin profile is not the best way to test XWiki
if you are a simple user.
Then he tried to move some pages from their existing
location to another
location, using the tree.
You mean using the Rename Page action, selecting the new location using the
tree? As in
http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Features/DocumentLifecycle#HMove2F…
.
Unfortunately, several times, when trying to drop the page under an
existing page, a "cancel" icon was displayed when he tried to click on the
"Select" button. Of course the reason was that he was trying to drop his
page under a terminal page, but there was no explanation about this in the
UI. It also took me a while to figure things out :-)
The tree from the Rename Page UI doesn't show terminal pages and doesn't
support drag&drop. The "Select" button from the "Select Page"
modal popup
that displays the tree is disabled when there is no page selected in the
tree. So I don't understand what you are talking about.
Thanks,
Marius
All in all that was a very frustrating experience to watch. To me, that's
another reason why I think we should really look at how we could deprecate
terminal pages. I see them being the source of many misunderstandings and
additional issues like this one.
Thanks,
Guillaume
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd(a)cjdns.fr> wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
I can't imagine how I would attempt to
explain a terminal (but not
meaning
it's going to die soon)
page to someone who doesn't know the insides of the sausage factory.
Every page is like a file, and it's also like a folder because it can
have
pages inside of it,
except for the ones that can't...
So +1 that users should never see/create/edit these weird pages which
cannot have children.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 27/11/15 17:10, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Nov 2015 at 17:06:17, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com
> (mailto:guillaume@xwiki.com)) wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 Nov 2015 at 16:42:39, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com
>>> (mailto:
>>> guillaume(a)xwiki.com)) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Hi Marius,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
>>>>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Devs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking
myself what
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> was the
>>>>>
>>>>>> point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't
see a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>
>>>>>> reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas
it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> poses
>>>>>
>>>>>> some issues:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - There is no visual distinction between terminal pages
and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nested
>>>
>>>> pages
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL,
which would be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cleaner
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> remove)
>>>>>>>> - We're planning to make it possible to reference a
nested page
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>> wiki
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
>>>>>>>> - When creating a new page from a terminal page,
you're creating
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>
>>>> sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> expectation
>>>
>>>> (and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> breadcrumb)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - For AWM applications, data/content pages are created as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> terminal
>>>
>>>> pages, which makes it impossible to add further content
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> underneath
>>>
>>>> them
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages
of tasks)
>>>>>>>> - To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a
terminal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> page
>>>
>>>> into a nested page should the need arise later on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but
are they
>>>>>>
>>>>> really
>>>>>
>>>>>> *needed*?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for
no
>>>>>>
>>>>> obvious
>>>>>
>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the
UI
>>>>> (Nested Pages) and the Model
(Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a
>>>>>
>>>> design to
>>>
>>>> explore what options we have to remove the concept of Spaces in the
>>>>>
>>>> model
>>>
>>>> and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s going to be tough to not
>>>>>
>>>> break
>>>
>>>> everything but need to explore it to know our options.
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m
>>>>> not
>>>>> sure why you think we should remove it completely from the UI. Why
do
>>>>>
>>>> you
>>>
>>>> fear that it’s too advanced for advanced users?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 2 reasons:
>>>>
>>>> *1/ Practical reason:* as a simple user, if I go to a terminal page
and
>>>> create a page from there, I will
create a sibling to the current page
>>>> instead of a child to the current page. I will not know why it
happened
>>>> like this, nor will I have the
ability to change it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right now users can already create sibling pages when they click the
Add
>>> button on a page.
>>>
>>> It would be easy to add a small warning when you’re on a terminal page
>>> and
>>> you click Add to mention that this is a terminal page that cannot have
>>> children.
>>>
>>>
>> Right, a warning to simple users that something different than what
they
>> expect is going to happen for a reason
that they cannot fathom to begin
>> with since they don't even know about terminal pages in the first
place.
>> It's a bit like telling them:
>>
>> *- XWiki: You can't create a child page from here!*
>> *- User: But, why?*
>> *- XWiki: Because!*
>> *- User: uh...*
>>
>> It only compounds the problem.
>>
>> *2/ Philosophical reason:* why keep something useless if we could as
well
>>>
>>>> remove it? That would be an application of Ockham's razor principle
if
>>>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>> will.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It’s not useless. As I mentioned this is still in the model and we
still
>>> support it. This means that we need a
way for advanced users to be
able
>>> to
>>> create those pages (and using a script to do so is worse than having a
>>> nice
>>> UI for it).
>>>
>>>
>> I have the feeling we're running in circles here. Just because terminal
>> pages still exist in the model doesn't tell me *why* they're still
needed
>> for the future.
>>
>> Do you have specific use cases in mind where it's *better* for an user
>> (or
>> a script!) to create a terminal page rather than a nested page? Does it
>> lead to performance improvements of some sort? Does it prevent
backwards
>> compatibility issues that would be caused
by switching all pages to
>> nested
>> pages? Any other *benefits* from having terminal pages?
>>
>
> I could list use cases (like some cases where it doesn’t make sense to
> have nested pages - like WebPreferences for example - Actually check a
> filesystem, you can’t create a subfile inside a file after all, I think
> users understand that) but anyway it doesn’t matter. The simple fact
that
> we have terminal pages in lots of extensions
require that the user be
able
to create
terminal pages.
Imagine that someone deletes a terminal page by error and you need to
recreate it. You need a way to do that or your extension is not going to
work.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Guillaume
Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> Thanks,
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>> Guillaume
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - However, I don't see any problem from a page being a nested
>>>>>>
>>>>> page
>
>> instead of being a terminal page
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand
>>>>>>
>>>>> they're
>>>
>>>> an
>>>>>
>>>>>> artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they really
>>>>>>
>>>>> make
>
>> sense
>>>
>>>> now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not
>>>>>>
>>>>> remove the
>
>> ability to create new ones even for admins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I missing something obvious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guillaume
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
devs mailing
list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
10:07 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] Issue about being advanced user when testing XWiki (was Re: [Idea] Deprecate terminal pages)
On 16 Dec 2015 at 07:14:31, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
wrote:
Note that anyone trying XWiki will use the Admin user ATM since that’s the only user we
provide by default and we even tell users to log with this user in the installation
instructions… :)
To fix this we could ask the user to create both an admin and a user in a DW step. Or make
the admin a simple user by default.
Thanks
-Vincent
[snip]
Hi Devs,
another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new user who
was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a number of pages as terminal pages.
Did he use the default Admin profile (which is configured as advanced) or
did he register a new profile (which is not advanced unless you configure
it explicitly)? The default Admin profile is not the best way to test XWiki
if you are a simple user. 
10:19 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] Issue about being advanced user when testing XWiki (was Re: [Idea] Deprecate terminal pages)
Hi,
Having an user called 'Admin' is something that might be preserved. Maybe
changing the password, but besides that there is no point in deleting the
user.
Having an user called 'User' is not 'personal' enough and I'm not sure
if
someone would keep and use this kind of user, after the initial log-in.
So in the Installation Notes, we could promote the Admin user for
Administrator's notes, while encouraging the registration of new user in
the Getting Started guide.
The disadvantage of registering when just testing XWiki is that it takes
longer. Ideally we should have social login that creates simple user types.
For automated tests we would need a simple user and create tests with
simple flows.
Another solution would be to make the displaying of Create terminal pages
check box disabled by default. So advanced Admin user would need to go to
their profile page and activate it, just like we have for "Display Hidden".
Thanks,
Caty
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:07 AM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
On 16 Dec 2015 at 07:14:31, Marius Dumitru Florea (
mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com))
wrote:
Did he use the default Admin profile (which is configured as advanced) or
did he register a new profile (which is not advanced unless you configure
it explicitly)? The default Admin profile is not the best way to test XWiki
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Guillaume
Lerouge
wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new user
who
> was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a
number of pages as terminal
pages.
if you are a simple user.
Note that anyone trying XWiki will use the Admin user ATM since that’s the
only user we provide by default and we even tell users to log with this
user in the installation instructions… :)
To fix this we could ask the user to create both an admin and a user in a
DW step. Or make the admin a simple user by default.
Thanks
-Vincent
[snip]
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
10:27 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] Issue about being advanced user when testing XWiki (was Re: [Idea] Deprecate terminal pages)
Hi Caty,
On 16 Dec 2015 at 10:20:18, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
(valicac@gmail.com(mailto:valicac@gmail.com)) wrote:
Hi,
Having an user called 'Admin' is something that might be preserved. Maybe
changing the password, but besides that there is no point in deleting the
user.
Having an user called 'User' is not 'personal' enough and I'm not
sure if
someone would keep and use this kind of user, after the initial log-in.
I don’t know who suggested creating a user called “User” :) That would be bad idea I
agree.
So in the Installation Notes, we could promote the
Admin user for
Administrator's notes, while encouraging the registration of new user in
the Getting Started guide.
That’s not enough. Nobody reads install notes or guides. IMO it’s better to have it done
in the DW. If you check how you install OSes, they ask you to create a user as part of the
process. That seems the nicest as an install flow.
The disadvantage of registering when just testing
XWiki is that it takes
longer. Ideally we should have social login that creates simple user types.
Social login is interesting too but it’s far from being the main use case. I’d say it
corresponds to 5% of XWiki use cases since XWiki is an enterprise wiki and you install it
on premises and don’t make it a public site in general. And you don’t want your employees
to use social logins in lots of cases.
For automated tests we would need a simple user and
create tests with
simple flows.
We do that already in several places.
Another solution would be to make the displaying of
Create terminal pages
check box disabled by default. So advanced Admin user would need to go to
their profile page and activate it, just like we have for "Display Hidden”.
Yes that could be an option but I’m not sure yet if it makes sense. The real question is
whether Admins need to be able to create terminal pages or not as part of their job. If
the answer is no then your solution could make sense.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Caty
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:07 AM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Dec 2015 at 07:14:31, Marius Dumitru Florea (
> mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com))
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Devs,
> > >
> > > another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new user
> who
> > > was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a number of pages as terminal
> pages.
> > >
> >
> > Did he use the default Admin profile (which is configured as advanced) or
> > did he register a new profile (which is not advanced unless you configure
> > it explicitly)? The default Admin profile is not the best way to test
> XWiki
> > if you are a simple user.
>
> Note that anyone trying XWiki will use the Admin user ATM since that’s the
> only user we provide by default and we even tell users to log with this
> user in the installation instructions… :)
>
> To fix this we could ask the user to create both an admin and a user in a
> DW step. Or make the admin a simple user by default.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> [snip]
>
6 Jan
6 Jan
6:37 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] Issue about being advanced user when testing XWiki (was Re: [Idea] Deprecate terminal pages)
Hi,
sorry for the late reply.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:27 AM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
Hi Caty,
On 16 Dec 2015 at 10:20:18, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) (valicac(a)gmail.com
(mailto:valicac@gmail.com)) wrote:
For the record, I think this is a good idea.
Thanks,
Guillaume
Thanks
Hi,
Having an user called 'Admin' is something that might be preserved. Maybe
changing the password, but besides that there is no point in deleting the
user.
Having an user called 'User' is not 'personal' enough and I'm not
sure if
someone would keep and use this kind of user, after the initial log-in.
I don’t know who suggested creating a user called “User” :) That would be
bad idea I agree.
So in the Installation Notes, we could promote
the Admin user for
Administrator's notes, while encouraging the registration of new user in
the Getting Started guide.
That’s not enough. Nobody reads install notes or guides. IMO it’s better
to have it done in the DW. If you check how you install OSes, they ask you
to create a user as part of the process. That seems the nicest as an
install flow.
The disadvantage of registering when just testing
XWiki is that it takes
longer. Ideally we should have social login that creates simple user
types.
Social login is interesting too but it’s far from being the main use case.
I’d say it corresponds to 5% of XWiki use cases since XWiki is an
enterprise wiki and you install it on premises and don’t make it a public
site in general. And you don’t want your employees to use social logins in
lots of cases.
For automated tests we would need a simple user
and create tests with
simple flows.
We do that already in several places.
Another solution would be to make the displaying
of Create terminal pages
check box disabled by default. So advanced Admin user would need to go to
their profile page and activate it, just like we have for "Display
Hidden”.
Yes that could be an option but I’m not sure yet if it makes sense. The
real question is whether Admins need to be able to create terminal pages or
not as part of their job. If the answer is no then your solution could make
sense.
-Vincent
Thanks,
Caty
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:07 AM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Dec 2015 at 07:14:31, Marius Dumitru Florea (
> mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com))
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Devs,
> > >
> > > another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new
user
> who
> > > was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a number of pages as terminal
> pages.
> > >
> >
> > Did he use the default Admin profile (which is configured as
advanced)
or
> > did he register a new profile (which is
not advanced unless you
configure
> > it explicitly)? The default Admin
profile is not the best way to test
> XWiki
> > if you are a simple user.
>
> Note that anyone trying XWiki will use the Admin user ATM since that’s
the
> only user we provide by default and we even
tell users to log with this
> user in the installation instructions… :)
>
> To fix this we could ask the user to create both an admin and a user
in a
> DW step. Or make the admin a simple user by
default.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> [snip]
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
<https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/bb2484bff5eeb048bda13ef460bda15b0523abfb?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.xwiki.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdevs&signature=ee3169b99362053e>
16 Dec
16 Dec
2:24 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] Issue about being advanced user when testing XWiki (was Re: [Idea] Deprecate terminal pages)
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:07 AM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
On 16 Dec 2015 at 07:14:31, Marius Dumitru Florea (
mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com))
wrote:
Did he use the default Admin profile (which is configured as advanced) or
did he register a new profile (which is not advanced unless you configure
it explicitly)? The default Admin profile is not the best way to test XWiki
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Guillaume
Lerouge
wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new user
who
> was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a
number of pages as terminal
pages.
if you are a simple user.
Note that anyone trying XWiki will use the Admin user ATM since that’s the
only user we provide by default and we even tell users to log with this
user in the installation instructions… :)
To fix this we could ask the user to create both an
admin and a user in a
DW step. Or make the admin a simple user by default.
+1 for creating the user profile during the DW, but how do we justify the
creation of two profiles: an admin and a simple user? If we create just a
single user profile then it probably needs to be advanced because it will
be used by the user that installs the wiki, which is going to administrate
the wiki also.
The problem is, as Guillaume Lerouge pointed out in a private discussion
this morning, that people who test XWiki are usually going to be the
administrator of their wiki instance and so they want to see Access Rights,
they want to see groups etc. (i.e. all the advanced features).
Thanks,
Marius
Thanks
-Vincent
[snip]
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
2:43 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] Issue about being advanced user when testing XWiki (was Re: [Idea] Deprecate terminal pages)
What we need to do is ask the login/password of his user the first
time and make him administrator. Have some user called XWiki.Admin is
totally useless.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:07 AM, vincent(a)massol.net
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
On 16 Dec 2015 at 07:14:31, Marius Dumitru Florea (
mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com))
wrote:
Did he use the default Admin profile (which is configured as advanced) or
did he register a new profile (which is not advanced unless you configure
it explicitly)? The default Admin profile is not the best way to test XWiki
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Guillaume
Lerouge
wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new user
who
> was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a
number of pages as terminal
pages.
if you are a simple user.
Note that anyone trying XWiki will use the Admin user ATM since that’s the
only user we provide by default and we even tell users to log with this
user in the installation instructions… :)
To fix this we could ask the user to create both
an admin and a user in a
DW step. Or make the admin a simple user by default.
+1 for creating the user profile during the DW, but how do we justify the
creation of two profiles: an admin and a simple user? If we create just a
single user profile then it probably needs to be advanced because it will
be used by the user that installs the wiki, which is going to administrate
the wiki also.
The problem is, as Guillaume Lerouge pointed out in a private discussion
this morning, that people who test XWiki are usually going to be the
administrator of their wiki instance and so they want to see Access Rights,
they want to see groups etc. (i.e. all the advanced features).
Thanks,
Marius
Thanks
-Vincent
[snip]
_______________________________________________
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
2:10 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
<guillaume(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Hi Devs,
another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new user who
was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a number of pages as terminal pages.
Did he use the default Admin profile (which is configured as advanced) or
did he register a new profile (which is not advanced unless you configure
it explicitly)? The default Admin profile is not the best way to test XWiki
if you are a simple user.
Then he tried to move some pages from their
existing location to another
location, using the tree.
You mean using the Rename Page action, selecting the new location using
the tree? As in
http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Features/DocumentLifecycle#HMove2F…
.
Unfortunately, several times, when trying to drop the page under an
existing page, a "cancel" icon was displayed when he tried to click on the
"Select" button. Of course the reason was that he was trying to drop his
page under a terminal page, but there was no explanation about this in the
UI. It also took me a while to figure things out :-)
The tree from the Rename Page UI doesn't show
terminal pages and doesn't
support drag&drop. The "Select" button from the "Select Page"
modal popup
that displays the tree is disabled when there is no page selected in the
tree. So I don't understand what you are talking about.
FTR, I talked with Guillaume in private and he showed me the wiki where he
had the problem. The issue was that he imported the Document Tree Macro
pages by mistake from an older XWiki version (pre nested pages) which has
affected the tree displayed on the Rename Page UI.
Thanks,
Marius
All in all that was a very frustrating experience to watch. To me, that's
another reason why I think we should really look at how we could deprecate
terminal pages. I see them being the source of many misunderstandings and
additional issues like this one.
Thanks,
Guillaume
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd(a)cjdns.fr>
wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
I can't imagine how I would attempt to
explain a terminal (but not
meaning
it's going to die soon)
page to someone who doesn't know the insides of the sausage factory.
Every page is like a file, and it's also like a folder because it can
have
pages inside of it,
except for the ones that can't...
So +1 that users should never see/create/edit these weird pages which
cannot have children.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 27/11/15 17:10, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Nov 2015 at 17:06:17, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com
> (mailto:guillaume@xwiki.com)) wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 Nov 2015 at 16:42:39, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com
>>> (mailto:
>>> guillaume(a)xwiki.com)) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Hi Marius,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
>>>>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Devs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking
myself
what
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> was the
>>>>>
>>>>>> point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't
see a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>
>>>>>> reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas
it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> poses
>>>>>
>>>>>> some issues:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - There is no visual distinction between terminal pages
and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nested
>>>
>>>> pages
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL,
which would be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cleaner
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> remove)
>>>>>>>> - We're planning to make it possible to reference a
nested page
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>> wiki
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
>>>>>>>> - When creating a new page from a terminal page,
you're creating
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>
>>>> sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> expectation
>>>
>>>> (and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> breadcrumb)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - For AWM applications, data/content pages are created as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> terminal
>>>
>>>> pages, which makes it impossible to add further content
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> underneath
>>>
>>>> them
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages
of
tasks)
>>>>>>>> - To my
knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> page
>>>
>>>> into a nested page should the need arise later on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but
are
they
>>>>>>
>>>>> really
>>>>>
>>>>>> *needed*?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for
no
>>>>>>
>>>>> obvious
>>>>>
>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the
UI
>>>>> (Nested Pages) and the Model
(Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a
>>>>>
>>>> design to
>>>
>>>> explore what options we have to remove the concept of Spaces in the
>>>>>
>>>> model
>>>
>>>> and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s going to be tough to
not
>>>>>
>>>> break
>>>
>>>> everything but need to explore it to know our options.
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m
>>>>> not
>>>>> sure why you think we should remove it completely from the UI. Why
do
>>>>>
>>>> you
>>>
>>>> fear that it’s too advanced for advanced users?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 2 reasons:
>>>>
>>>> *1/ Practical reason:* as a simple user, if I go to a terminal page
and
>>>> create a page from there, I will
create a sibling to the current
page
>>>> instead of a child to the current
page. I will not know why it
happened
>>>> like this, nor will I have the
ability to change it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right now users can already create sibling pages when they click the
Add
>>> button on a page.
>>>
>>> It would be easy to add a small warning when you’re on a terminal
page
>>> and
>>> you click Add to mention that this is a terminal page that cannot
have
>>> children.
>>>
>>>
>> Right, a warning to simple users that something different than what
they
>> expect is going to happen for a reason
that they cannot fathom to
begin
>> with since they don't even know about
terminal pages in the first
place.
>> It's a bit like telling them:
>>
>> *- XWiki: You can't create a child page from here!*
>> *- User: But, why?*
>> *- XWiki: Because!*
>> *- User: uh...*
>>
>> It only compounds the problem.
>>
>> *2/ Philosophical reason:* why keep something useless if we could as
well
>>>
>>>> remove it? That would be an application of Ockham's razor principle
if
>>>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>> will.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It’s not useless. As I mentioned this is still in the model and we
still
>>> support it. This means that we need a
way for advanced users to be
able
>>> to
>>> create those pages (and using a script to do so is worse than having
a
>>> nice
>>> UI for it).
>>>
>>>
>> I have the feeling we're running in circles here. Just because
terminal
>> pages still exist in the model
doesn't tell me *why* they're still
needed
>> for the future.
>>
>> Do you have specific use cases in mind where it's *better* for an user
>> (or
>> a script!) to create a terminal page rather than a nested page? Does
it
>> lead to performance improvements of some
sort? Does it prevent
backwards
>> compatibility issues that would be caused
by switching all pages to
>> nested
>> pages? Any other *benefits* from having terminal pages?
>>
>
> I could list use cases (like some cases where it doesn’t make sense to
> have nested pages - like WebPreferences for example - Actually check a
> filesystem, you can’t create a subfile inside a file after all, I think
> users understand that) but anyway it doesn’t matter. The simple fact
that
> we have terminal pages in lots of extensions
require that the user be
able
> to create terminal pages.
>
> Imagine that someone deletes a terminal page by error and you need to
> recreate it. You need a way to do that or your extension is not going
to
work.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
>
> Guillaume
>
>
> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Guillaume
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
>>>>
>>>> Guillaume
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - However, I don't see any problem from a page being a nested
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> page
>>
>>> instead of being a terminal page
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I
understand
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> they're
>>>>
>>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they
really
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> make
>>
>>> sense
>>>>
>>>>> now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> remove the
>>
>>> ability to create new ones even for admins.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am I missing something obvious?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guillaume
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
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
10:04 a.m.
Hi Guillaume,
Several points:
* Terminal pages are already deprecated. Users create non terminal pages only.
* We need some migration scripts to let user migrate their existing content (using
terminal pages) into non terminal pages
* Apps and extensions in general need to be updated to use non-terminal pages where it
makes sense. Note that some apps may not want that users be able to create subpages to the
data they create; it’s an app decision (sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t).
* In order to full remove terminal pages we would need to modify the model at the DB
level
* We need to handle legacy
* Terminal pages options are hidden in the rename/copy UIs and they shouldn’t generate WTF
moments normally. If they do we need to tune that.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Dec 2015 at 21:23:45, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com) wrote:
Hi Devs,
another observation regarding this. Earlier today I watched a new user who
was trying XWiki 7.3. He had created a number of pages as terminal pages.
Then he tried to move some pages from their existing location to another
location, using the tree.
Unfortunately, several times, when trying to drop the page under an
existing page, a "cancel" icon was displayed when he tried to click on the
"Select" button. Of course the reason was that he was trying to drop his
page under a terminal page, but there was no explanation about this in the
UI. It also took me a while to figure things out :-)
All in all that was a very frustrating experience to watch. To me, that's
another reason why I think we should really look at how we could deprecate
terminal pages. I see them being the source of many misunderstandings and
additional issues like this one.
Thanks,
Guillaume
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd(a)cjdns.fr> wrote:
I can't imagine how I would attempt to explain a
terminal (but not meaning
it's going to die soon)
page to someone who doesn't know the insides of the sausage factory.
Every page is like a file, and it's also like a folder because it can have
pages inside of it,
except for the ones that can't...
So +1 that users should never see/create/edit these weird pages which
cannot have children.
Thanks,
Caleb
On 27/11/15 17:10, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On 27 Nov 2015 at 17:06:17, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com
(mailto:guillaume@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hi Vincent,
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
I could list use cases (like some cases where it doesn’t make sense to
have nested pages - like WebPreferences for example - Actually check a
filesystem, you can’t create a subfile inside a file after all, I think
users understand that) but anyway it doesn’t matter. The simple fact that
we have terminal pages in lots of extensions require that the user be able
to create terminal pages.
Imagine that someone deletes a terminal page by error and you need to
recreate it. You need a way to do that or your extension is not going to
work.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
On 27 Nov 2015 at 16:42:39, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com
(mailto:
guillaume(a)xwiki.com)) wrote:
Hi,
>
> Hi Marius,
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> after trying XE 7.4 snapshot some more, I kept asking myself what
>>>>>
>>>> was the
>>
>>> point of even allowing terminal pages to exists. I couldn't see a
>>>>>
>>>> good
>>
>>> reason why any given page would *need* to be terminal, whereas it
>>>>>
>>>> poses
>>
>>> some issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> - There is no visual distinction between terminal pages and
>>>>>
>>>> nested
> pages
>>>>
>>>>> in the interface (besides "WebHome" in the URL, which would
be
>>>>>
>>>> cleaner
>>
>>> to
>>>>> remove)
>>>>> - We're planning to make it possible to reference a nested page
>>>>>
>>>> in
> wiki
>>>>
>>>>> syntax without having to write "WebHome" in it
>>>>> - When creating a new page from a terminal page, you're creating
>>>>>
>>>> a
> sibling instead of a child page, which breaks the user
>>>>>
>>>> expectation
> (and
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> breadcrumb)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - For AWM applications, data/content pages are created as
>>>>>
>>>> terminal
> pages, which makes it impossible to add further content
>>>>>
>>>> underneath
> them
>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>> the future (say, sub-tasks that would go as child pages of tasks)
>>>>> - To my knowledge, there is no easy way to transform a terminal
>>>>>
>>>> page
> into a nested page should the need arise later on
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> See
>>>>
>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/users/2015-November/031558.html
>
>>>
>>> Thanks. I understand it's fine to have terminal pages, but are they
>>>
>> really
>>
>>> *needed*?
>>>
>>> My feeling is that keeping this concept generates complexity for no
>>>
>> obvious
>>
>>> benefit.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What really generates complexity ATM is the difference between the UI
>> (Nested Pages) and the Model (Nested Spaces). I’d like to start a
>>
> design to
> explore what options we have to remove the concept of Spaces in the
>>
> model
> and only have pages. I have the feeling it’s going to be tough to not
>>
> break
> everything but need to explore it to know our options.
>>
>> I feel that terminal pages are already well hidden in the UI so I’m
>> not
>> sure why you think we should remove it completely from the UI. Why do
>>
> you
> fear that it’s too advanced for advanced users?
>>
>>
> 2 reasons:
>
> *1/ Practical reason:* as a simple user, if I go to a terminal page and
> create a page from there, I will create a sibling to the current page
> instead of a child to the current page. I will not know why it happened
> like this, nor will I have the ability to change it.
>
Right now users can already create sibling pages when they click the Add
button on a page.
It would be easy to add a small warning when you’re on a terminal page
and
you click Add to mention that this is a terminal page that cannot have
children.
Right, a warning to simple users that something different than what they
expect is going to happen for a reason that they cannot fathom to begin
with since they don't even know about terminal pages in the first place.
It's a bit like telling them:
*- XWiki: You can't create a child page from here!*
*- User: But, why?*
*- XWiki: Because!*
*- User: uh...*
It only compounds the problem.
*2/ Philosophical reason:* why keep something useless if we could as well
> remove it? That would be an application of Ockham's razor principle if
>
you
> will.
>
It’s not useless. As I mentioned this is still in the model and we still
support it. This means that we need a way for advanced users to be able
to
create those pages (and using a script to do so is worse than having a
nice
UI for it).
I have the feeling we're running in circles here. Just because terminal
pages still exist in the model doesn't tell me *why* they're still needed
for the future.
Do you have specific use cases in mind where it's *better* for an user
(or
a script!) to create a terminal page rather than a nested page? Does it
lead to performance improvements of some sort? Does it prevent backwards
compatibility issues that would be caused by switching all pages to
nested
pages? Any other *benefits* from having terminal pages?
Guillaume
Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> Thanks,
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>> Guillaume
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - However, I don't see any problem from a page being a nested
>>>>>>
>>>>> page
>
>> instead of being a terminal page
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In summary: why bother with terminal pages at all? I understand
>>>>>>
>>>>> they're
>>>
>>>> an
>>>>>
>>>>>> artefact from our pre-nested-spaces model, but do they really
>>>>>>
>>>>> make
>
>> sense
>>>
>>>> now? We could let existing terminal pages live on, but not
>>>>>>
>>>>> remove the
>
>> ability to create new ones even for admins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I missing something obvious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guillaume
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
devs mailing
list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
3229
days inactive
3270
days old
18 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) -
Guillaume Lerouge -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Thomas Mortagne -
vincent＠massol.net