25 Feb
2014
25 Feb
'14
11:58 p.m.
+1 for a fresh look, so for Flamingo. Regarding the templates, we need
to take into account that Velocity is starting to become an old
technology (last release is more than 3 years ago) so it may be a good
time to look for alternatives. On the server side there is FreeMarker
(last release in June 2013). We could also decide to use wiki syntax
in the templates. On the client side there are standalone libraries,
such as Handlebars used by Ember, or framework-specific
implementations like in the case of Angular.
Thanks,
Marius
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:49 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Personally all I know is that we need a fresh look in
XWiki 6.x so for me there's no doubt that we want Flamingo.
What needs to be discussed is how to get there. There are 2 paths:
A) modify our templates/css heavily to use Bootstrap and base the new Flamingo on that
B) keep the current templates as much as possible, with possibly some changes and move
templates specific to Colibri in the Colibri skin and templates specific to Flamingo in
the flamingo skin, keeping common templates in the templates directory. No bootstrap
integration.
Pros and Cons of solution A:
============================
+ foundation for the future
+ allow us to perform cleanup of our templates
+ ability to use bootstrap themes (an issue we've had for a long since so far
we've never been able to support more than 1 skin - We could do color changes but not
structural changes)
- more costly
- will take more time to have Flamingo ready for end users
- need to rethink the notion of Color Themes into a more global notion of Skin Theme
which affects not only colors but also other parameters (centered or not, etc)
Pros and Cons of solution B:
============================
+ less costly
+ quicker to get in the hands of our users and thus quicker adoption of XWiki as a
product
- only able to support one skin as we've done in the past
- not building for the future and not able to leverage the work done by others on
bootstrap
Obviously A is the best option if you have all the devs in the world and all the time in
the world... :) Personally I'd like and need to see an evaluation of the work required
to do A) before choosing anything. What can be done in 6.0, 6.1, etc? In which XWiki
release would we be able to see Flamingo ready if we were to do A?
What is important IMO is to be able to show UI improvements/progress in every release of
XWiki (6.0, 6.1, etc) since we've been lagging a bit behind on this.
Thanks!
-Vincent
On 24 Feb 2014 at 09:44:57, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
(valicac@gmail.com(mailto:valicac@gmail.com)) wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Denis Gervalle
wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Hi Cathy,
You have launch a couple of not so easy threads, and probably why no one
have found enough time yet to follow up. I really hope this will change in
the upcoming days, since the skin evolution is very important aspect that
really need to be thoroughly discussed.
As I see it, choosing between 1. "keeping the colibri look" using the Junco
skin, and 2. using a fresh look like flamingo, based on your developed
arguments, is more a question about what do we do with our current
templates, and how free are we to change them ? Could we afford and impose
a new improvement to our markups and templates, while providing enough
backward compatibility for existing extensions.
In your Bootstrap integration thread, I develop the technical aspect around
these markup issues, showing, I hope, that we have the occasion to smoothly
evolve our skin without getting stuck by the past. Regarding the design
aspect, your Flamingo proposal is far more refreshing and appealing,
providing a more responsive look that I hope could extends our user base.
If we could implement it without extending bootstrap, allowing it to be
restyled with any bootstrap variants, it would make it a very versatile
skin.
So, if we could target that new skin, while keeping an acceptable
compromise for existing stuff, I see no reason not to move forward. This is
not really a choice between 1) and 2), since what I propose is to use Junco
to provide a backward compatibility CSS, and for a while also a modernized
colibri skin using our existing templates, and to also evolve our
templates, using a more bootstrap based markups to produce that more
appealing Flamingo skin. So, it is more 2) than 1), since we will only
target 2) for new stuffs.
So what you are saying is that:
- if someone wants a backwards compatible skin (with Colibri and with
current extensions on e.x.o) should use Junco and
- if someone wants a new skin (where we implement new functionality) should
use Flamingo.
From your e-mail I understand that your preference goes towards Flamingo.
I admit that Junco is more of a compromise solution for our problems and
I've seen it as in intermediate step towards Flamingo, while still
providing new functionality and making us advanced (in the shortest time
possible).
The issue is our development resources and I think it would be hard for us
to officially maintain 2 skins.
So maybe some solutions would be:
A. Officially: Colibri + Junco + Flamingo
- Maintain support for Colibri, but not innovate. We should support this
skin for 1 year at least;
- Support Junco, as in intermediary solution for Colibri and Flamingo;
- Support Flamingo (new stuff).
B. Officially: Colibri + Flamingo
- Maintain support for Colibri, but not innovate;
- Support Flamingo;
- Have Junco on e.x.o as a backwards compatibility solution.
C. Officially: Junco + Flamingo
- Stop support for Colibri since Junco will kind of duplicate it (while
adding the Bootstrap functionality);
- Support Junco
- Support Flamingo.
These are just ideas.
Thanks,
Caty
WDYT ?
_______________________________________________
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