On 5/2/13, Matevž Bradač <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1. May, 2013, at 3:00, Olemis Lang wrote: >> On 4/30/13, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Author: matevz >>> Date: Tue Apr 30 10:58:59 2013 >>> New Revision: 1477551 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1477551 >>> Log: >>> Ticket relations widget - initial implementation >>> >> >> I'm really excited to see this >> :) > > Glad to hear it. =) > It's currently in very basic form, but should improve soon. >
:) Good work . I look forward to see more >> >> Is there a chance to move these ticket relations widgets on to BH >> Relations plugin ? [...] > > I'm all for decoupling, but I ran into some issues when the widget > was placed into bhrelations plugin. I'll recheck what it was and > try to resolve it. ok ... > Same goes for the ProductWidget which should > be moved to multiproduct plugin. > + > BTW, is the dashboard prerequisite for all other BH plugins? Once upon a (long) time we had two options wrt common assets : 1. a whole new (plugin | lib) for common assets 2. include common assets and reusable code in BH Dashboard plugin ... and we chose (2) . Since that moment , yes , BH Dashboard is a required dependency . > Can it be turned off, but still have e.g. multiproduct support > enabled? I'm tempted to say «no» . In a few words : Twitter Bootstrap files (i.e. an instance of common assets ;) are contributed by BH Dashboard plugin . However afaicr , at least the first versions of default multi-product templates did not depend upon bootstrap styling . BH Theme plugin was in charge of installing Bootstrap-specific MP look and feel . > AFAICS, the widgets won't render without dashboard, > but I'm not 100% sure. > Widgets are a derivative of dashboard concept . Indeed the later may be defined as the combination of layout(s) + widget(s) . So there are no dashboards without widgets (and layouts) , from an architectural perspective . -- Regards, Olemis.
