Cool :-) Regarding the contacts page, I just think it is weird that if I click on "My Contacts" or on my name "Ethan Jewett" next the picture, I get almost exactly the same page. The only difference is that the user page has a messages pane.
My mild preference would be to just get rid of the "My Contacts" page, but maybe some people think it is important? Different applications take a different view of the importance of this sort of functionality. Yammer makes it very difficult to see a list of people you are following and people who are following you. Twitter splashes it up on the main page. I'm not particularly committed to either idea. Ethan On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm up for anything to reduce clutter - I like the suggestion, because > it is cleaner and removes all those pesky "views". > > Regarding the contacts page, what do you suggest as a replacement? > Having some sort of a filter on the users page? > > D. > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Vladimir Ivanov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Ethan, > > > > First of all, I think your proposal will really simplify template > structure. > > > > Just to clarify things about 'tags' page: when user makes request to > > '/tag/tagname' it is then rewritten to '/info_view/tag' URL (with request > > paramter 'tagname' added to it) which corresponds to /info_view/tag.html > > template (it is then processed with specific snippet TagDisplay.display() > ). > > Am I right? > > > > Now I clearly see one possibility: place tag.html template under 'views' > > folder (common folder for all templates) and then redirect user with > rewrite > > rule from '/tag/tagname' URL to '/views/tag' URL. > > > > I haven't completely understood another approach (or most probably my > > english leaves a lot to be desired ;s) ) that you've mentioned: "Which > makes > > me wonder why we wouldn't just put the templates where they are supposed > to > > be and dispense with the rewrite rules completely (your suggestion #1)" > > > > Did you mean place tag.html template under root folder and then dispense > > WITHOUT rewrite rules? > > > > Vladimir > > > > > > 2011/4/28 Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> > > > >> Hey Vladimir, > >> > >> I thought this idea might be half-baked :-) Thanks for taking a look at > it. > >> > >> So, my thought was to do it like we do for the 'tags' page currently. > But > >> that uses a rewrite rule (your suggestion #3). Which makes me wonder why > we > >> wouldn't just put the templates where they are supposed to be and > dispense > >> with the rewrite rules completely (your suggestion #1). > >> > >> What do you think would be the best way? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Ethan > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Vladimir Ivanov <[email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Ethan! > >> > > >> > Sounds reasonable for me. I have one question: > >> > > >> > Take, for example, public page. It is defined in Boot.scala > >> > as: Menu(Loc("public", List("info_view", "public")... and it > correspondes > >> > to > >> > '/info_view/public.html' URL. > >> > > >> > You've proposed to change this URL to '/public'. How should it be > mapped > >> in > >> > SiteMap: > >> > > >> > 1) Menu(Loc("public", List("public")... which correspondes to > >> 'public.html' > >> > template in root folder? > >> > > >> > 2) Menu(Loc("public", List("public", "some_template")... corresponding > to > >> > /public/some_template.html ? > >> > > >> > 3) Rewrite request so that when user asks for /public URL it will be > >> > redirected to /views/public.html (where views is a single common > folder > >> for > >> > all templates )? > >> > > >> > Sorry if I missed something in your inital explanation. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Vladimir > >> > > >> > > >> > 2011/4/28 Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> > >> > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > [Note, this has been sitting in draft format for forever. So I'm > just > >> > > cut-and-pasting it and throwing it out to everyone.] > >> > > > >> > > I've been doing a fair amount of work on the front-end templates > lately > >> > and > >> > > I've noticed that the template and URL organization isn't currently > >> very > >> > > consistent. I think this has just happened over the last year or so > as > >> > > we've > >> > > added and changed things without a view to consistency, but maybe > I'm > >> > > missing a greater organizational scheme here. If so, let me know :-) > >> > > > >> > > I'd like to propose making the following changes to the URL scheme: > >> > > > >> > > Current (mostly right, I think): > >> > > > >> > > / (index) > >> > > /info_view/public > >> > > /info_view/users > >> > > /info_view/streams > >> > > /info_view/contacts > >> > > /user/USERNAME (remapped from info_view/user) > >> > > /profile_view/edit > >> > > /track_view/ > >> > > /action_vew/ > >> > > /auth_view/ > >> > > /pools_view/ > >> > > /conversation/CONVID (remapped from info_view/conversation) > >> > > /tag/TAGNAME > >> > > /logout > >> > > /info_view/search?SEARCHQUERY > >> > > > >> > > /api (original api) > >> > > /api2 (new api) > >> > > /twitter (twitter api) > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Proposed: > >> > > > >> > > / (index) > >> > > /public > >> > > /users > >> > > /users/USERNAME > >> > > /streams > >> > > /contacts (do we even need this any more?) > >> > > /profile > >> > > /tracks > >> > > /actions > >> > > /tokens > >> > > /pools > >> > > /conversations/CONVID > >> > > /tags/TAGNAME > >> > > /logout > >> > > /search?SEARCHQUERY > >> > > > >> > > ... plus API stuff, which would not change. > >> > > > >> > > I'd also like to propose making the following change to template > >> > > organization: > >> > > > >> > > Reorganize all the main templates under a single folder, so > >> action_view, > >> > > auth_view, pools_view, profile_view, and track_view folders would go > >> > away. > >> > > We would change the name of the info_view folder to something like > >> > "views", > >> > > though this would never show up in the URL scheme, so we could stick > >> with > >> > > "info_view". > >> > > > >> > > Move signup.html into the new "views" folder. > >> > > > >> > > My questions for everyone: > >> > > > >> > > Does this all sound OK? > >> > > Any suggestions how it could be improved or anything I'm missing > that > >> is > >> > a > >> > > reason we shouldn't do this? > >> > > If we do it, what release should it go in to? > >> > > If necessary, we can set up rewrite rules so that old bookmarks > still > >> > work. > >> > > Does anyone think this would be necessary? > >> > > > >> > > If everyone is more or less OK with it, I'll create a ticket and > then > >> get > >> > > to > >> > > work on it as time allows. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Ethan > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best Regards, > >> > Vladimir Ivanov > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Vladimir Ivanov > > >
