28 Sep
2018
28 Sep
'18
10:13 a.m.
+1 to not require the Code space if the application doesn't have pages that
are meant to be accessed directly. For instance, I don't see the need for
the Code space on an application that:
* has all its pages hidden (all are technical pages)
* the application defines a macro that is listed on the macro index and on
the WYSIWYG editor
* the application defines an administration section available in the wiki
administration
* the application extends the XWIki UI through an extension point
* etc.
I really don't see why I would need to put the CKEditor code in
CKEditor.Code when there's no page in the CKEditor Integration application
that is meant to be accessed by the users.
Thanks,
Marius
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
I’ve just had a quick chat with Edy and I found that we had a difference
of opinion on the Code subspace practice.
On
https://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPr…
we say:
"Technical pages must be put in a subspace named Code”
Now Edy says that this should be done only for data-generating apps.
It’s not my recollection that this rule was only for this case and this is
what I’d like to discuss here.
For example, I’ve noticed that ActiveInstalls has all technical pages
under ActiveInstalls, see
https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/tree/053f0a2757cea18a5916632a58c604…
I would fix it to have only the WebHome remain under ActiveInstalls and
move all the technical pages under ActiveInstalls.Code.
The only case where it could make sense to not have a Code subspace would
be when the app has no UI at all. Even in this case, you might argue that
we should always have a home to provide a description about the content of
the space.
So right now I’m personally in favor of continuing the rule we defined in
the best practices:
"Technical pages must be put in a subspace named Code”
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent