awesome.

> could learn 80-90% of the architecture
>
very happy to hear this.

Ruchira, Dulitha and I were also discussing about adding categorizes, the
biggest concern was maybe it'll make things more complex. One option is to
limit to only 2-lavels.
Another thing we have to think is, whether the name of the unit depends on
the category.

eg:

{{unit "categoryA.unitB"}}

Looking forward to having a chat with you on this.


On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Rasika Perera <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> Sorry for jumping into this thread like coming from nowhere. I also tried
> a sample jaggery app using Unified UI Framework. For the above purpose I
> referred MDM app as a sample and could learn 80-90% of the architecture(As
> I think) within about 10-15 minutes. As a complete new guy; I could mention
> that Unified UI framework is "very productive" and has a very "short
> learning curve".
>
> As also Prabath mentioned; When an App grows it needs a way to organize
> corresponding UI bits across various zones. For instance;
>
> app
> |
> |-----pages
> |      |----index.hbs
> |      |----about.hbs
> |      `----login.hbs
> |
> |-----layouts
> |
> |-----*units                            *<------ this can have "N" number
> of units
> |       |
> |       |-------unitA
> |       |-------unitB
> |       |         |------public
> |       |         |        |----images
> |       |         |        |-----js
> |       |         |        `-----css
> |       |         |
> |       |         |------unitB.hbs
> |       |         |------unitB.json
> |       |         `------unitB.js
> |       |-------unitC
> |       |-------unitD
> |       `-------unitN
> |
> `-----jaggery.conf
>
> The above app can have "N" number of units or sharable components(e.g.
> unitA) in a flat hierarchy.We can allow developer to categorize them in a
> logical manner.
>
> app
> |
> |-----pages
> |      |----index.hbs
> |      |----about.hbs
> |      `----login.hbs
> |
> |-----layouts
> |
> |-----*units*
> |       |
> |       |-----*categoryA               *<---a logical category that
> organizes unitA and unitB
> |       |       |
> |       |       |------*unitA             *<--\ ___ organized units
> |       |       `------*unitB             *<--/
> |       |                |------public
> |       |                |        |----images
> |       |                |        |-----js
> |       |                |          `-----css
> |       |                |
> |       |                |------unitB.hbs
> |       |                |------unitB.json
> |       |                `------unitB.js
> |       |-------unitC
> |       |-------unitD
> |       `-------unitN                    <---unorganized units
> |
> `-----jaggery.conf
>
> For the above requirement I tried; modifying "fuse.js" and I could achieve
> allowing "N" number of sub-categories for the sharable components/units. It
> identifies a subcategory with absent of a "unit definition file" inside the
> folder. In other words; if it is a "category" it should not contain a
> "<category>.json" inside.
>
> The following scenario is also possible.
>
> |-----units
>         |
>         `-----categoryA
>                 |
>                 |------categoryAb
>                 |        |
>                 |        `-----unitAb
>                 `------unitA
>
>
> Hope this will be beneficial for future development efforts as well.
>
> Note: MDM guys can try this out-of the box. I have attached modified
> fuse.js[1] and git diff[2]. Small modification needed for this to run
> correctly; inside your MDM app; bootstrap unit should have a
> "bootstrap.json"; otherwise it will be taken as a "unit category".
>
> Thank you
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Prabath Abeysekera <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ruchira,
>>
>> I'd really appreciate if you can review the requirements posted above and
>> assign someone to get this implemented soon, since this going to be a very
>> critical functionality for us.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Prabath
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Srinath Perera <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 We need this.
>>>
>>> --Srinath
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Manuranga Perera <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Prabath,
>>>>
>>>> +1 to implement this. currently as a workaround Dulitha is prefixing
>>>> units by a common prefix but this not a very strong workaround.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> With regards,
>>>> *Manu*ranga Perera.
>>>>
>>>> phone : 071 7 70 20 50
>>>> mail : [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Architecture mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ============================
>>> Srinath Perera, Ph.D.
>>>    http://people.apache.org/~hemapani/
>>>    http://srinathsview.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Prabath Abeysekara
>> Technical Lead
>> WSO2 Inc.
>> Email: [email protected]
>> Mobile: +94774171471
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Architecture mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> With Regards,
>
> *Rasika Perera*
> Software Engineer
> M: +94 71 680 9060 E: [email protected]
> LinkedIn: http://lk.linkedin.com/in/rasika90
>
> WSO2 Inc. www.wso2.com
> lean.enterprise.middleware
>



-- 
With regards,
*Manu*ranga Perera.

phone : 071 7 70 20 50
mail : [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Architecture mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture

Reply via email to