Be careful with theses rules since they are not only for xwiki-platform but also for contrib application and it should be made clear that this is only for an application that require 7.2 or more which is really not a good idea for a new contrib extension.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 9:19 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Also before making this a rule we should probably refactor AWM first since it's more and more the base for many new applications.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:55 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

I agree with this best practice at some point yes.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Ping! There’s only Thomas and Gaby who answered so far :) Thanks -Vincent On 27 Sep 2015 at 21:19:43, vincent(a)massol.net (vincent(a)massol.net) wrote: Hi devs, Following our implementation of NS/NP in 7.2 I’d like to propose 2 new best practices for app dev that we would list at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPra… 1) New rule 1: “Code” subspace Current text: * Generally, put all your pages in a single space dedicated for the application you're developing (e.g. Faq, Scheduler, IRC, AppWithinMinutes, etc). The name must be as short as possible while still being understandable of course and without overusing abbreviations. New version: * Generally, put all your pages in a single space dedicated for the application you're developing (e.g. Faq, Scheduler, IRC, AppWithinMinutes, etc). The name must be as short as possible while still being understandable of course and without overusing abbreviations. * Technical pages should be put in a subspace named “Code” Note: this rule can only be applied for new applications for now since the EM doesn’t know how to follow renames currently so for example if I move pages from the FAQCode space to the FAQ.Code space, when EM upgrades the app, it’ll display all pages in FAQCode as deleted (basically it considers all pages in FAQ.Code as new pages and pages in FAQCode as deleted pages). Note: I’ve created http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12622 for this. 2) New rule 2: * Technical pages without children must be terminal pages. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Denis, On 30 Sep 2015 at 09:49:28, Denis Gervalle (dgl(a)softec.lu(mailto: dgl(a)softec.lu)) wrote: you looks in and data You mean something like: MyApp |_ Data/ |_ Code/ |_ WebHome (Instead of leaving it free for apps to decide where to put the data they generate) We could indeed standardize on the location of where an app puts the data it generates in a “Data" space. Even without this, to remove an app you’d simply remove the Code/ space (+ the WebHome).

So your proposal of a standardized Data directory doesn’t contradict my proposal, it’s actually an additional proposal, so I guess you agree about the 2 rules? (you didn’t mention anything about rule 2). Thanks! -Vincent wrote: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPra… AppWithinMinutes, AppWithinMinutes, the move the considers pages). _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Denis, On 30 Sep 2015 at 09:49:28, Denis Gervalle (dgl@softec.lu(mailto:dgl@softec.lu)) wrote: You mean something like: MyApp |_ Data/ |_ Code/ |_ WebHome (Instead of leaving it free for apps to decide where to put the data they generate) We could indeed standardize on the location of where an app puts the data it generates in a “Data" space.

Even without this, to remove an app you’d simply remove the Code/ space (+ the WebHome). So your proposal of a standardized Data directory doesn’t contradict my proposal, it’s actually an additional proposal, so I guess you agree about the 2 rules? (you didn’t mention anything about rule 2). Thanks! -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On 30 Sep 2015 at 10:28:54, Thomas Mortagne (thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote: Good point, that’s a no go IMO. Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On 30 Sep 2015 at 10:53:48, Thomas Mortagne (thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote: 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.

Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

2015-09-30 10:58 GMT+02:00 vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>et>: 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. That is why I don't think it's the correct way to go. We need this option: delete this page and its children *except* the "Code" page and its children. This option could be proposed by the app itself, as a "clean data" functionality.

From an interface point of view, this could be solved with a treeview when

The other solution is to not change the current best practices and let the code in an other space. thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com to space issue. the propose http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPra… now it for -- Guillaume Delhumeau (gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project

On 30 Sep 2015 at 11:30:16, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume@xwiki.com(mailto:guillaume@xwiki.com)) wrote: Yes, I like this, a LT might be better for filtering things though. Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On 30 Sep 2015 at 11:30:16, Guillaume Lerouge (guillaume(a)xwiki.com(mailto: guillaume(a)xwiki.com)) wrote: thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com (so one. terminal technical located in removing the works now, "Code" itself, as when Yes, I like this, a LT might be better for filtering things though. Thanks -Vincent the (mailto: page way with the which of code the puts which is Code/ guess 2). http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPra… dedicated for being abbreviations. dedicated for being abbreviations. for example (basically http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12622 _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: 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 ;)

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar < c.robbenhaar(a)espresto.com&gt; wrote: thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com (so located removing works being bad 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. main 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

On 27 Oct 2015 at 11:35:13, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau ( gdelhumeau@xwiki.com(mailto:gdelhumeau@xwiki.com)) wrote: use-cases. It’s true that Entries is less technical than Data so I would also prefer it. However can we foresee some generated data that won’t be Entries?

Thanks -Vincent Delhumeau < to space this terminal right regular WebHome, Data something looks have blog practice the (e.g. then group "Data" or the "Events" smaller _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hello all, my 2 cents on the "Data" or "Entries" subspace. ( But too late, since I see the issue was already closed :( ) 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".

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).

But I guess this is really too late now...

Thanks, Anca On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: use-cases. Delhumeau < to space WebHome, looks blog practice group "Data" _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

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 &lt;lucaa(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: Thanks for taking the time to participate. application The Code space is still hidden so a regular user doesn't see it. There's no change in this regard. one, between 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.

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 shown vincent(a)massol.net it rules under Posts) the that the nested _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

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: http://blog.ludovic.org On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Anca Luca wrote: _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Devs, Appart from the “conventional” application that manage their own data subset, there is more general application, that are either providing wiki-wide feature without data, or that are managing data in the whole wiki, providing additional features. For example, the Administration application, the CKEditor, … and other application actually mixed in the XWiki space. For those applications, the code/data space separation has no real meaning, but I think it would also be nice to have the code of those applications under a common root, in place of having all of them creating a space at the root of the wiki. For example, currently the UI of the CKEditor is in a CKEditor space at the root, and I have no easy way to distinguish it from a normal space (except that it is invisible), and it is also holding a space name. I agree, there is little chance that a user wants to create an editorial space by the name, but it could happen, and depends on the application space name, there could be more common cases. My proposal is to put such application inside a common space. There is several options for the name of that space: A) Reuse the existing “XWiki” space Pros: - not holding a new name at root - always available - nice place to move application already mixup in that space to their own space Cons: - it is currently a mess - it holds users (but shouldn’t we move them to Users space ? I know it is not easy) B) Create a new space for this purpose B1) XWikiApplications B2) XWikiExtensions B3) WikiApplications B4) WikiExtensions B5) Wiki B6) … ? wdyt ? On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On 02 May 2016, at 09:56, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: Not quite. Program Files is for all apps (see below for a real “program files” proposal). From Denis’ proposal I also prefer option A. Denis Proposal A ============== Right now I think the proposal is twofold: * Apps with Data continue to create a top level Space containing both Code and Data (i.e. apps that generate user-related data) * Apps without Data under the XWiki space (option A) Example: [ROOT] |_ XWiki |_ Applications |_ CKEditor |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can contain config data> |_ Blog |_ Code |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can contain config data> |_ Data |_ <blog-generated user data, i.e. blog posts> "Program Files” Proposal ==================== * Have all apps under the XWiki space (ie the “Program Files” of Windows for XWiki) * Have user-related data in a nested space under the User profile’s page (would need to be converted to a space first) * Have data generated for users (wiki wide) in some other location. Right now that would be a top level space named after the app. So in this proposal we would have for example: [ROOT] |_ XWiki |_ Applications |_ CKEditor |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can contain config data> |_ Blog |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can contain config data> |_ Blog |_ <blog-generated user data, i.e. blog posts> Pros: - All apps located in the same place - App Code protected by default (but can be overridden if need be) - Nicer for users since that would solve the “Data”-space-in-the-breadcrumb issue (i.e. they wouldn’t see /Data/ in the breadcrumb when on app-generated pages)

WDYT? Thanks -Vincent > +1 for A > > other important pros IMO: already protected against edition by anyone > else than admin, allow extension to do have to deal with that with > some hypothetical "XWikiAdminGroup" group that may or may not exist > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; wrote: >> Hi Devs, >> >> Appart from the “conventional” application that manage their own data >> subset, there is more general application, that are either providing >> wiki-wide feature without data, or that are managing data in the whole >> wiki, providing additional features. For example, the Administration >> application, the CKEditor, … and other application actually mixed in the >> XWiki space. >> >> For those applications, the code/data space separation has no real meaning, >> but I think it would also be nice to have the code of those applications >> under a common root, in place of having all of them creating a space at the >> root of the wiki. For example, currently the UI of the CKEditor is in a >> CKEditor space at the root, and I have no easy way to distinguish it from a >> normal space (except that it is invisible), and it is also holding a space >> name. I agree, there is little chance that a user wants to create an >> editorial space by the name, but it could happen, and depends on the >> application space name, there could be more common cases. >> >> My proposal is to put such application inside a common space. There is >> several options for the name of that space: >> >> A) Reuse the existing “XWiki” space >> Pros: >> - not holding a new name at root >> - always available >> - nice place to move application already mixup in that space to their own >> space >> Cons: >> - it is currently a mess >> - it holds users (but shouldn’t we move them to Users space ? I know it is >> not easy) >> >> B) Create a new space for this purpose >> B1) XWikiApplications >> B2) XWikiExtensions >> B3) WikiApplications >> B4) WikiExtensions >> B5) Wiki >> B6) … ? >> >> wdyt ? >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ludovic, >>> >>> On 20 Nov 2015 at 19:30:26, Ludovic Dubost (ludovic(a)xwiki.com(mailto: >>> ludovic(a)xwiki.com)) wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Thanks for reporting, see http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12836# >>> >>> -Vincent >>> >>>> Ludovic >>>> >>>> --*Ludovic Dubost* >>>> *Founder and CEO* >>>> ludovic(a)xwiki.com >>>> skype: ldubost >>>> Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Anca Luca wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, 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 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&gt; 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;gt;: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar < >>>>>>>>> c.robbenhaar(a)espresto.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" >>>>>>> Delhumeau < >>>>>>>>>>> gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt; 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 >>>>>>

On 02 May 2016, at 09:56, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: Not quite. Program Files is for all apps (see below for a real “program files” proposal). From Denis’ proposal I also prefer option A. Denis Proposal A ============== Right now I think the proposal is twofold: * Apps with Data continue to create a top level Space containing both Code and Data (i.e. apps that generate user-related data) * Apps without Data under the XWiki space (option A) Example: [ROOT] |_ XWiki |_ Applications |_ CKEditor |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can contain config data> |_ Blog |_ Code |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can contain config data> |_ Data |_ <blog-generated user data, i.e. blog posts> "Program Files” Proposal ==================== * Have all apps under the XWiki space (ie the “Program Files” of Windows for XWiki) * Have user-related data in a nested space under the User profile’s page (would need to be converted to a space first) * Have data generated for users (wiki wide) in some other location. Right now that would be a top level space named after the app. So in this proposal we would have for example: [ROOT] |_ XWiki |_ Applications |_ CKEditor |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can contain config data> |_ Blog |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can contain config data> |_ Blog |_ <blog-generated user data, i.e. blog posts>

Pros: - All apps located in the same place - App Code protected by default (but can be overridden if need be) - Nicer for users since that would solve the “Data”-space-in-the-breadcrumb issue (i.e. they wouldn’t see /Data/ in the breadcrumb when on app-generated pages) WDYT? Thanks -Vincent > +1 for A > > other important pros IMO: already protected against edition by anyone > else than admin, allow extension to do have to deal with that with > some hypothetical "XWikiAdminGroup" group that may or may not exist > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; wrote: >> Hi Devs, >> >> Appart from the “conventional” application that manage their own data >> subset, there is more general application, that are either providing >> wiki-wide feature without data, or that are managing data in the whole >> wiki, providing additional features. For example, the Administration >> application, the CKEditor, … and other application actually mixed in the >> XWiki space. >> >> For those applications, the code/data space separation has no real meaning, >> but I think it would also be nice to have the code of those applications >> under a common root, in place of having all of them creating a space at the >> root of the wiki. For example, currently the UI of the CKEditor is in a >> CKEditor space at the root, and I have no easy way to distinguish it from a >> normal space (except that it is invisible), and it is also holding a space >> name. I agree, there is little chance that a user wants to create an >> editorial space by the name, but it could happen, and depends on the >> application space name, there could be more common cases. >> >> My proposal is to put such application inside a common space. There is >> several options for the name of that space: >> >> A) Reuse the existing “XWiki” space >> Pros: >> - not holding a new name at root >> - always available >> - nice place to move application already mixup in that space to their own >> space >> Cons: >> - it is currently a mess >> - it holds users (but shouldn’t we move them to Users space ? I know it is >> not easy) >> >> B) Create a new space for this purpose >> B1) XWikiApplications >> B2) XWikiExtensions >> B3) WikiApplications >> B4) WikiExtensions >> B5) Wiki >> B6) … ? >> >> wdyt ? >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ludovic, >>> >>> On 20 Nov 2015 at 19:30:26, Ludovic Dubost (ludovic(a)xwiki.com(mailto: >>> ludovic(a)xwiki.com)) wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Thanks for reporting, see http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12836# >>> >>> -Vincent >>> >>>> Ludovic >>>> >>>> --*Ludovic Dubost* >>>> *Founder and CEO* >>>> ludovic(a)xwiki.com >>>> skype: ldubost >>>> Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Anca Luca wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, 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 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&gt; 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;gt;: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar < >>>>>>>>> c.robbenhaar(a)espresto.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" >>>>>>> Delhumeau < >>>>>>>>>>> gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt; 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 >>>>>>

On 02 May 2016, at 10:57, Guillaume Delhumeau &lt;guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: Hello. Thanks for raising this topic Denis. I think we need to take a decision on this. Vincent: I like your proposal, except that we need to manage rights with caution. Right now, the "XWiki" space is protected and regular users cannot write content in it (except on their profile page). But regular users have the rights to use AWM, and with your proposal, the code generated by AWM will be in the XWiki space that the user cannot edit. Same for any application that he would like to write without being administrator of the wiki.

Thanks 2016-05-02 10:12 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt;et>: > >> On 02 May 2016, at 09:56, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: >> >> >>> On 02 May 2016, at 09:32, Thomas Mortagne &lt;thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com&gt; > wrote: >>> >>> So basically you want to introduce the "Program Files" of XWiki ? >> >> Not quite. Program Files is for all apps (see below for a real “program > files” proposal). >> >> From Denis’ proposal I also prefer option A. >> >> Denis Proposal A >> ============== >> >> Right now I think the proposal is twofold: >> * Apps with Data continue to create a top level Space containing both > Code and Data (i.e. apps that generate user-related data) >> * Apps without Data under the XWiki space (option A) >> >> Example: >> >> [ROOT] >> |_ XWiki >> |_ Applications >> |_ CKEditor >> |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can > contain config data> >> |_ Blog >> |_ Code >> |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can > contain config data> >> |_ Data >> |_ <blog-generated user data, i.e. blog posts> >> >> "Program Files” Proposal >> ==================== >> >> * Have all apps under the XWiki space (ie the “Program Files” of Windows > for XWiki) >> * Have user-related data in a nested space under the User profile’s page > (would need to be converted to a space first) >> * Have data generated for users (wiki wide) in some other location. > Right now that would be a top level space named after the app. >> >> So in this proposal we would have for example: >> >> [ROOT] >> |_ XWiki >> |_ Applications >> |_ CKEditor >> |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can > contain config data> >> |_ Blog >> |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can > contain config data> >> |_ Blog >> |_ <blog-generated user data, i.e. blog posts> > > There’s also an alternative if we wish to cleanly separate app-generated > data from content spaces, which is to put all app-generated data under a > different root. For example: > > [ROOT] > |_ XWiki > |_ Applications > |_ CKEditor > |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can > contain config data> > |_ Blog > |_ <app pages, i.e. technical pages, no data for the user, can > contain config data> > |_ Applications (or another name - FTR Windows uses AppData but it’s > hidden) > |_ Blog > |_ <blog-generated user data, i.e. blog posts> > |_ <content spaces under root> > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> Pros: >> - All apps located in the same place >> - App Code protected by default (but can be overridden if need be) >> - Nicer for users since that would solve the > “Data”-space-in-the-breadcrumb issue (i.e. they wouldn’t see /Data/ in the > breadcrumb when on app-generated pages) >> >> WDYT? >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> +1 for A >>> >>> other important pros IMO: already protected against edition by anyone >>> else than admin, allow extension to do have to deal with that with >>> some hypothetical "XWikiAdminGroup" group that may or may not exist >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; wrote: >>>> Hi Devs, >>>> >>>> Appart from the “conventional” application that manage their own data >>>> subset, there is more general application, that are either providing >>>> wiki-wide feature without data, or that are managing data in the whole >>>> wiki, providing additional features. For example, the Administration >>>> application, the CKEditor, … and other application actually mixed in > the >>>> XWiki space. >>>> >>>> For those applications, the code/data space separation has no real > meaning, >>>> but I think it would also be nice to have the code of those > applications >>>> under a common root, in place of having all of them creating a space > at the >>>> root of the wiki. For example, currently the UI of the CKEditor is in a >>>> CKEditor space at the root, and I have no easy way to distinguish it > from a >>>> normal space (except that it is invisible), and it is also holding a > space >>>> name. I agree, there is little chance that a user wants to create an >>>> editorial space by the name, but it could happen, and depends on the >>>> application space name, there could be more common cases. >>>> >>>> My proposal is to put such application inside a common space. There is >>>> several options for the name of that space: >>>> >>>> A) Reuse the existing “XWiki” space >>>> Pros: >>>> - not holding a new name at root >>>> - always available >>>> - nice place to move application already mixup in that space to their > own >>>> space >>>> Cons: >>>> - it is currently a mess >>>> - it holds users (but shouldn’t we move them to Users space ? I know > it is >>>> not easy) >>>> >>>> B) Create a new space for this purpose >>>> B1) XWikiApplications >>>> B2) XWikiExtensions >>>> B3) WikiApplications >>>> B4) WikiExtensions >>>> B5) Wiki >>>> B6) … ? >>>> >>>> wdyt ? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:53 PM, vincent(a)massol.net < > vincent(a)massol.net&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ludovic, >>>>> >>>>> On 20 Nov 2015 at 19:30:26, Ludovic Dubost (ludovic(a)xwiki.com(mailto: >>>>> ludovic(a)xwiki.com)) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for reporting, see http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12836# >>>>> >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>>> Ludovic >>>>>> >>>>>> --*Ludovic Dubost* >>>>>> *Founder and CEO* >>>>>> ludovic(a)xwiki.com >>>>>> skype: ldubost >>>>>> Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Anca Luca wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, 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 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&gt; 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;gt;: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar < >>>>>>>>>>> c.robbenhaar(a)espresto.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" >>>>>>>>> Delhumeau < >>>>>>>>>>>>> gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt; 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

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote: Most applications generate structured data so if you know the application xclass then it's easy to write a query that selects all the application entries (excluding the template) from any given location (application space, data space, whatever). Deleting the application entries is not a problem IMO. The problem is setting different access rights for the code space and the data space. If the code space is nested inside the data space then you need to be careful with the rights inheritance. So I'm +1 for App |- Code |- Data Having /Data/ in the URL is not a big issue for me. 

What can be an issue is having the word "Data" in the breadcrumbs. But we could partially fix this by setting a title on the Data.WebHome using a translation key whose value can be set by the application creator. The following is acceptable IMO: Mocca Calendar / Events / Seminar 2015 Weekly Activity / Reports / Week 18 to 24 August Task Manager / Tasks / Improve the marketing page FAQ / Questions / What is the meaning of life but there are applications where this doesn't look good Meeting / Meetings / Roadmap 7.3 Ideas / Ideas / Send people to Mars so the application creator will have to settle for Ideas / Entries / Send people to Mars

Thanks, Marius I know there is already issue with that about the WebHome which > is usually an entry point to the application, but deleting a space was > possible. If the code is nested under the data, isn't it an issue. It looks > like the opposite of the general way (not xwiki way, but in application in > general), where the code abstract more or less the location of the data and > is the "main" part. > > So, I am not sure actually, that this is the best way. Maybe code and data > should be side by side under a entry point documents ? > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:22 AM, vincent(a)massol.net > wrote: > > > Ping! There’s only Thomas and Gaby who answered so far :) > > > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > > On 27 Sep 2015 at 21:19:43, vincent(a)massol.net (vincent(a)massol.net) > wrote: > > > > Hi devs, > > > > Following our implementation of NS/NP in 7.2 I’d like to propose 2 new > > best practices for app dev that we would list at > > > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPra… > > > > 1) New rule 1: “Code” subspace > > > > Current text: > > * Generally, put all your pages in a single space dedicated for the > > application you're developing (e.g. Faq, Scheduler, IRC, > AppWithinMinutes, > > etc). The name must be as short as possible while still being > > understandable of course and without overusing abbreviations. > > > > New version: > > * Generally, put all your pages in a single space dedicated for the > > application you're developing (e.g. Faq, Scheduler, IRC, > AppWithinMinutes, > > etc). The name must be as short as possible while still being > > understandable of course and without overusing abbreviations. > > * Technical pages should be put in a subspace named “Code” > > > > Note: this rule can only be applied for new applications for now since > the > > EM doesn’t know how to follow renames currently so for example if I move > > pages from the FAQCode space to the FAQ.Code space, when EM upgrades the > > app, it’ll display all pages in FAQCode as deleted (basically it > considers > > all pages in FAQ.Code as new pages and pages in FAQCode as deleted > pages). > > Note: I’ve created http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12622 for this. > > > > 2) New rule 2: > > > > * Technical pages without children must be terminal pages. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent

On 03 Oct 2016, at 13:03, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) &lt;valicac(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: +1 for Rule 1) about the Code space -0 for Rule 2) we shouldn't encourage terminal pages anymore. I know is simpler to write scripts without the need to write "WebHome" all over, but the problem is that, unless you plan all your application first in the head, you cannot know if you will need to break it under multiple children pages (macros, etc.) Starting first as terminal and then switching is not fun either, or trying to remember every time to check the terminal option because that's the rule, not fun either. Or at the end of the development process seeing some technical pages don't have children and make them terminal, just to apply with the rule, is kind of anti productive. If we switch the rule from "must be terminal pages" to "might be terminal pages" that maybe will suit me more, but then it will actually not be a rule.

Thanks, Caty On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > This thread has been hijacked by several other proposals which were not > part of my initial proposal which consisted of only 2 rules. > > I’d like to progress and agree about those 2 rules **only** (for the > moment). I’d like to officially put them on http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/ > bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPractices > > I got the following answer related to my proposal: > * Vincent: ok (obviously) > * Thomas: ok > * Gabriela: ok > > Does anyone disagree with those 2 rules? > > Barring any negative feedback, I’ll move them to > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ > ApplicationDevelopmentBestPractices this afternoon. > > Then we can iterate on the rest of what was proposed in this thread: > * Data dir > * Locations for apps > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> On 27 Sep 2015, at 21:19, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: >> >> Hi devs, >> >> Following our implementation of NS/NP in 7.2 I’d like to propose 2 new > best practices for app dev that we would list at > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ > ApplicationDevelopmentBestPractices >> >> 1) New rule 1: “Code” subspace >> >> Current text: >> * Generally, put all your pages in a single space dedicated for the > application you're developing (e.g. Faq, Scheduler, IRC, AppWithinMinutes, > etc). The name must be as short as possible while still being > understandable of course and without overusing abbreviations. >> >> New version: >> * Generally, put all your pages in a single space dedicated for the > application you're developing (e.g. Faq, Scheduler, IRC, AppWithinMinutes, > etc). The name must be as short as possible while still being > understandable of course and without overusing abbreviations. >> * Technical pages should be put in a subspace named “Code” >> >> Note: this rule can only be applied for new applications for now since > the EM doesn’t know how to follow renames currently so for example if I > move pages from the FAQCode space to the FAQ.Code space, when EM upgrades > the app, it’ll display all pages in FAQCode as deleted (basically it > considers all pages in FAQ.Code as new pages and pages in FAQCode as > deleted pages). Note: I’ve created http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/ > XWIKI-12622 for this. >> >> 2) New rule 2: >> >> * Technical pages without children must be terminal pages. >> >> WDYT? >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent

Hi Here's my +1 for these 2 rules. For the first one, it looks like is almost inevitable to not have an empty SomePage.Code.WebHome. For the second one, I would prefer to not pollute the wiki with useless WebHomes and I would also avoid adding children to class, template, sheet and translation documents(which I would definitely mark as terminal). Classes are used everywhere in queries and it would be nice to not use SomeClass.WebHome'. Thanks, Alex On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: not option development terminal pages: not a done not http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/ new since I _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs