1 Mar
2013
1 Mar
'13
2:54 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On Mar 1, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean <jv(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
I seriously don't understand how they wouldn't be considered API already.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Jean-Vincent
Drean <jv(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
I don't understand why you want to consider UIXP different from a Java API for
example. For me it's as important and as difficult to remove/modify.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
To be more precise let's say someone writes an app that'd need an UIXP
at platform.template.header.bottom, if we decide to go for 1) he'll
probably take the time to push for this particular UIXP, but that's
it. At that pace the risk is to end up with let's say 10 UIXPs by the
end of 2013.
On Mar 1, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean <jv(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Like Vincent, I do not really think we have thoroughly worked
>> our templates. IMO, templates should not be considered a good base for
>> implementing UI extension point blindly.
>>
>> Currently templates were closely linked with our distributed skin. When we
>> have introduce Colibri, new templates were added, especially to support the
>> new content menu for example, and other were ignored, left over since no
>> more useful. Do you consider UI extension point to be closely linked with
>> our skin ? What would happen when we implement the bootstrap based skin ?
>>
>
> When I look at the list of UIXP I pasted I don't see it closely
> related to a specific skin.
> Some names are not perfect, but again I don't think we can afford
> renaming them (because of our skin overriding mechanism).
> What problem do you foresee with a bootstrap based skin ? Would it be
> difficult to keep current template names ?
>
>> Just think about the proposal from Cathy, there is no more left panels...
>
> Does the fact that the proposal have a single panel in the left column
> means that we should consider dropping the panel feature ?
>
>> but an applications panel or whatever, how do you expect to support
>> platform.template.leftpanels.top, platform.template.leftpanels.bottom, what
>> would be there meaning ?
>>
>
> We could drop leftpanels.vm and rightpanels.vm and make the panel app
> hook itself to platform.template.endpage.top.
>
>> For sure doing 1) is harder, but creating truly semantic UIXP could have
>> real advantage for maintenance and compatibility of code that use those
>> UIXP. So I would really prefer a few initial set of those semantic UIXP to
>> start with, than that long list of not necessarily useful and meaningful
>> ones. And, at least, I would like to read more opinion to consider 2).
>>
>
> 1) is harder and I'm afraid it can start endless discussions :)
That's exactly why we need 1) :)
I meant "endless" literally.
The worse that can happen is not having not enough
UIXP but having too many and people starting creating extensions and having all UI-related
extensions broken on e.x.o.
I agree, that's why I suggested having a blacklist for 2) in a
previous email, containing what we've identified as
soon-to-be-deprecated UI elements.
Since we're just starting with UIXP it's
probably better to do it slowly as we learn it.
That's why I said before that we need to define a strategy for deprecating UIXP. If
we have a good strategy that may help in adding new UIXP more easily.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Jean-Vincent Drean,
XWiki.