Re: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library

[Tobias Oetiker]

Hi Fritz,

Today Fritz Zaucker wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, John Spackman wrote:
>
> > How cool would it be if it automatically downloaded my contrib just
> > because your code referenced it?  For new users, it would mean that any
> > example snippets work, out of the box.  What do you think?
>
> I am not sure if automatic download is really the best solution. This could
> also lead to breaking existing applications if the owner of the contrib
> makes a mistake or an incompatible change.

this can be easily addressed by using mandatory semantic versioning
and a config file where you declear what version you want to use
and the option of allowing bugfix updates, I think ...

> A well defined API for contrib that would just require a simple git clone to
> my local file system that then can be easily be pulled in by the compiler
> would be consistent with most existing work flows.

yes ... we need to get and contrib issue fixed and we need tooling
support for it, and since the build system is part of the qooxdoo
offering, management of the 3rd party extensions should be part of
it.

cheers
tobi

-- 
Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland
www.oetiker.ch t...@oetiker.ch +41 62 775 9902


--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel

Re: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library

[Fritz Zaucker]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, John Spackman wrote:

> How cool would it be if it automatically downloaded my contrib just
> because your code referenced it?  For new users, it would mean that any
> example snippets work, out of the box.  What do you think?

I am not sure if automatic download is really the best solution. This could
also lead to breaking existing applications if the owner of the contrib
makes a mistake or an incompatible change.

A well defined API for contrib that would just require a simple git clone to
my local file system that then can be easily be pulled in by the compiler
would be consistent with most existing work flows.

Cheers,
Fritz

-- 
Oetiker+Partner AG  tel: +41 62 775 9903 (direct)
Fritz Zaucker+41 62 775 9900 (switch board)
Aarweg 15+41 79 675 0630 (mobile)
CH-4600 Olten   fax: +41 62 775 9905
Schweiz web: www.oetiker.ch

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel

Re: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library

[dev]

Hi John,

> Hi Stefan
>   
>  I hadn't seen this when I replied earlier, but reading it now I think that 
> this touches on the discussions ages ago about how to integrate 
> contributions into builds.
>   
>  If bringing in outside contributions could be simplified, then the 
> location and control of components, whether UI components or something 
> else, becomes less of an issue.
>   
>  Ideally I'd like to see something where creating a contrib was no harder 
> than pushing to github, and using one was no harder than referencing a 
> github url.  If there was also a unified namespace, then just referencing a 
> class could cause the compiler to include the contrib; for example, my 
> qx-serverobjects uses the namespace .zenesis.qx.remote and obviously I own 
> zenesis.com so I should be able to define a mapping to my github release 
> somehow.
>   
>  How cool would it be if it automatically downloaded my contrib just 
> because your code referenced it?  For new users, it would mean that any 
> example snippets work, out of the box.  What do you think?

Exactly this is our idea about it. It should be seemlessly integrated. The 
cloud should be used. An automatic behaviour when referenced bothers new users 
less and they can focus on less details...i.e. they need less reading of 
manuals etc...that is something for framework developers.

With a contribution system where also the existing GUI components are 
contributed but maybe called "core", it is possible to easily contribute and 
then the community will test it and approve the component after certain rules 
set up. KISS Keep It Stupid Simple but increase flexibility...

A contributor sends a pull request to one collecting repository of GUI 
components. It will then be tested and approved or not etc. When generating the 
application all references are checked against this repository and prints a 
warning message of an unapproved component is referenced etc.

It makes it easier to expand the set of GUI components, versionize them and 
focus on keeping the core of the framework lean and effective with a clear 
focus.

Is it a good idea?

Stefan


>  Regards
>  John
>   
>   
>
> 
>  From: d...@cost-savers.net
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:34 AM
> To: "qooxdoo Development" <qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Subject: Re: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library   
> Derrell,
>
>> qooxdoo apps already include only those GUI components that are actively
>> used by the user's app. Yes, they're included in the qooxdoo source 
> code,
>> but are otherwise unused.
>
> Putting them in a separate library fully accessible at genertion might 
> increase interest of community to add their UI components and the API would 
> be clearer than today...
>
>> I would be opposed to removing them. That's going in the opposite 
> direction
>> of making qooxdoo easier for new people to use. A related option that I
>> wouldn't oppose (but don't see a very good reason for implementing) is 
> to
>> create a GUI "library" (in qooxdoo parlance) that is by default included 
> in
>> config.json (or whatever build system is used). An advanced user could
>> choose to remove that library entry from config.json to entirely 
> decouple
>> the core GUI code. Again, though, I don't think this is necessary, as 
> users
>> are free to create whatever GUI they like, and as long as they have 
> their
>> own namespace, have no concern of including qooxdoo core GUI 
> functionality
>> in their app.
>
> Not removing them but moving them into a separate library list where they 
> can be accessed and used at compilation. Versions of them can then be 
> handled easier.
> The doc and everything would be the same. In practice no difference except 
> that other users might be interested to use one of the components and can 
> then easily add it without getting all qooxdoo. A structure more like 
> jquery using git to hold the components and for a list of accepted, tested 
> and approved components, but with qooxdoo's complexity. Many developers use 
> jquery, which still is very successful, of this reason...easy to access and 
> use without studying a whole framework...
>
> It might also force the core to be even leaner and modularized without 
> extra overhead.
>
> I think your last sentence is a concern for new users...overhead and 
> complexitysteep learning curve
>
> Stefan
>
>> Derrell
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:02 PM <d...@cost-savers.net> wrote:
>>
>>> After thinking back and forth we have tried to find out about how to 
> make
>>> the UI components independent of the co

Re: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library

[John Spackman]

Hi Stefan
  
 I hadn't seen this when I replied earlier, but reading it now I think that 
this touches on the discussions ages ago about how to integrate 
contributions into builds.
  
 If bringing in outside contributions could be simplified, then the 
location and control of components, whether UI components or something 
else, becomes less of an issue.
  
 Ideally I'd like to see something where creating a contrib was no harder 
than pushing to github, and using one was no harder than referencing a 
github url.  If there was also a unified namespace, then just referencing a 
class could cause the compiler to include the contrib; for example, my 
qx-serverobjects uses the namespace .zenesis.qx.remote and obviously I own 
zenesis.com so I should be able to define a mapping to my github release 
somehow.
  
 How cool would it be if it automatically downloaded my contrib just 
because your code referenced it?  For new users, it would mean that any 
example snippets work, out of the box.  What do you think?
  
 Regards
 John
  
  


 From: d...@cost-savers.net
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:34 AM
To: "qooxdoo Development" <qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library   
Derrell,

> qooxdoo apps already include only those GUI components that are actively
> used by the user's app. Yes, they're included in the qooxdoo source 
code,
> but are otherwise unused.

Putting them in a separate library fully accessible at genertion might 
increase interest of community to add their UI components and the API would 
be clearer than today...

> I would be opposed to removing them. That's going in the opposite 
direction
> of making qooxdoo easier for new people to use. A related option that I
> wouldn't oppose (but don't see a very good reason for implementing) is 
to
> create a GUI "library" (in qooxdoo parlance) that is by default included 
in
> config.json (or whatever build system is used). An advanced user could
> choose to remove that library entry from config.json to entirely 
decouple
> the core GUI code. Again, though, I don't think this is necessary, as 
users
> are free to create whatever GUI they like, and as long as they have 
their
> own namespace, have no concern of including qooxdoo core GUI 
functionality
> in their app.

Not removing them but moving them into a separate library list where they 
can be accessed and used at compilation. Versions of them can then be 
handled easier.
The doc and everything would be the same. In practice no difference except 
that other users might be interested to use one of the components and can 
then easily add it without getting all qooxdoo. A structure more like 
jquery using git to hold the components and for a list of accepted, tested 
and approved components, but with qooxdoo's complexity. Many developers use 
jquery, which still is very successful, of this reason...easy to access and 
use without studying a whole framework...

It might also force the core to be even leaner and modularized without 
extra overhead.

I think your last sentence is a concern for new users...overhead and 
complexitysteep learning curve

Stefan

> Derrell
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:02 PM <d...@cost-savers.net> wrote:
>
>> After thinking back and forth we have tried to find out about how to 
make
>> the UI components independent of the core of the framework.
>>
>> It would be fantastic if it would be possible to uncouple dependencies
>> other than the core ones.
>>
>> Imagine to have a UI component library, which is not decided by the
>> qooxdoo team and not a compulsory unit coupled unconditionally to the
>> core...
>>
>> If that would be possible to do, then the core team can focus on core
>> development, while anyone can contribute with UI components. The current 
so
>> called core UI components would be available separately and loadable on
>> demand but uncoupled from the core.
>>
>> What do you say about that? Any ideas? Pros and cons?
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> 

--
>> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
>> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
>> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
>> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
>> ___
>> qooxdoo-devel mailing list
>> qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
>>

> 
--

Re: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library

[John Spackman]

Hi Stefan
  
 Im not sure if I've misunderstood but while I think it would be quite 
straightforward to separate them off, Im not sure what the benefit would 
be?  There's no runtime overhead because the compiler/generator would only 
bring in what's necessary, so it would be useful for admin purposes but 
would make it more complicated for new users to get started.  At the moment 
the "core" development effort is spread across all parts of Qooxdoo so I'd 
be concerned that it would admin overhead at a time when there is so much 
to do.
  
 Regards
 John
  
  
  


 From: d...@cost-savers.net
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 6:14 PM
To: qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library   
After thinking back and forth we have tried to find out about how to make 
the UI components independent of the core of the framework.

It would be fantastic if it would be possible to uncouple dependencies 
other than the core ones.

Imagine to have a UI component library, which is not decided by the qooxdoo 
team and not a compulsory unit coupled unconditionally to the core...

If that would be possible to do, then the core team can focus on core 
development, while anyone can contribute with UI components. The current so 
called core UI components would be available separately and loadable on 
demand but uncoupled from the core.

What do you say about that? Any ideas? Pros and cons?

Stefan


--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140___
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel

Re: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library

[dev]

Derrell,

> qooxdoo apps already include only those GUI components that are actively
> used by the user's app. Yes, they're included in the qooxdoo source code,
> but are otherwise unused.

Putting them in a separate library fully accessible at genertion might increase 
interest of community to add their UI components and the API would be clearer 
than today...

> I would be opposed to removing them. That's going in the opposite direction
> of making qooxdoo easier for new people to use. A related option that I
> wouldn't oppose (but don't see a very good reason for implementing) is to
> create a GUI "library" (in qooxdoo parlance) that is by default included in
> config.json (or whatever build system is used). An advanced user could
> choose to remove that library entry from config.json to entirely decouple
> the core GUI code. Again, though, I don't think this is necessary, as users
> are free to create whatever GUI they like, and as long as they have their
> own namespace, have no concern of including qooxdoo core GUI functionality
> in their app.

Not removing them but moving them into a separate library list where they can 
be accessed and used at compilation. Versions of them can then be handled 
easier.
The doc and everything would be the same. In practice no difference except that 
other users might be interested to use one of the components and can then 
easily add it without getting all qooxdoo. A structure more like jquery using 
git to hold the components and for a list of accepted, tested and approved 
components, but with qooxdoo's complexity. Many developers use jquery, which 
still is very successful, of this reason...easy to access and use without 
studying a whole framework...

It might also force the core to be even leaner and modularized without extra 
overhead.

I think your last sentence is a concern for new users...overhead and 
complexitysteep learning curve

Stefan


> Derrell
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:02 PM  wrote:
>
>> After thinking back and forth we have tried to find out about how to make
>> the UI components independent of the core of the framework.
>>
>> It would be fantastic if it would be possible to uncouple dependencies
>> other than the core ones.
>>
>> Imagine to have a UI component library, which is not decided by the
>> qooxdoo team and not a compulsory unit coupled unconditionally to the
>> core...
>>
>> If that would be possible to do, then the core team can focus on core
>> development, while anyone can contribute with UI components. The current so
>> called core UI components would be available separately and loadable on
>> demand but uncoupled from the core.
>>
>> What do you say about that? Any ideas? Pros and cons?
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
>> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
>> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
>> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
>> ___
>> qooxdoo-devel mailing list
>> qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
>>


> --
> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140


> ___
> qooxdoo-devel mailing list
> qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel



--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel

Re: [qooxdoo-devel] Component library

[Derrell Lipman]

qooxdoo apps already include only those GUI components that are actively
used by the user's app. Yes, they're included in the qooxdoo source code,
but are otherwise unused.

I would be opposed to removing them. That's going in the opposite direction
of making qooxdoo easier for new people to use. A related option that I
wouldn't oppose (but don't see a very good reason for implementing) is to
create a GUI "library" (in qooxdoo parlance) that is by default included in
config.json (or whatever build system is used). An advanced user could
choose to remove that library entry from config.json to entirely decouple
the core GUI code. Again, though, I don't think this is necessary, as users
are free to create whatever GUI they like, and as long as they have their
own namespace, have no concern of including qooxdoo core GUI functionality
in their app.

Derrell


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:02 PM  wrote:

> After thinking back and forth we have tried to find out about how to make
> the UI components independent of the core of the framework.
>
> It would be fantastic if it would be possible to uncouple dependencies
> other than the core ones.
>
> Imagine to have a UI component library, which is not decided by the
> qooxdoo team and not a compulsory unit coupled unconditionally to the
> core...
>
> If that would be possible to do, then the core team can focus on core
> development, while anyone can contribute with UI components. The current so
> called core UI components would be available separately and loadable on
> demand but uncoupled from the core.
>
> What do you say about that? Any ideas? Pros and cons?
>
> Stefan
>
>
> --
> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
> ___
> qooxdoo-devel mailing list
> qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
>
--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140___
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
qooxdoo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel