On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:37 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Oct 2015 at 11:35:13, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau ( [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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…
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?
First that come to mind, is configuration. You may as well need to store temporary data, cached data, etc… I am not sure all apps should be considered close to AWM.
Thanks -Vincent
Just my 2 cents.
2015-10-26 10:45 GMT+01:00 Marius Dumitru Florea < [email protected]>:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar < [email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie"
Delhumeau <
[email protected]> wrote:
2015-09-30 10:58 GMT+02:00 [email protected] :
> > On 30 Sep 2015 at 10:53:48, Thomas Mortagne ( [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])) 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
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO