Yes, that's true. That goes back to one of the big difficulties with something like OFBiz managed in the "Apache way". OFBiz isn't a project driven by specifications, and so many decisions are made in a more ad-hoc manner.
If we were to step back and make OFBiz spec-driven by actually writing up requirements and then creating designs (specs) based on the requirements, and then implementing to those, and testing against them. That sort of effort could happen right now by collaborating on documents that represent requirements, and then on documents that represent designs. Those would be separate from the project for (probably) quite a while, so wouldn't interfere with current happenings. -David On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > I agree with you on the unnecessary complication of common or shared > artifacts. I have been ranting for years about the Global Decorator being > filled with a lot of things that don't belong there, but nothing changes - > people keep dumping more stuff in there. So the problem is caused by more > than a lack of discussion in the design phase, it's also caused by a lack of > care after the design. > > -Adrian > > On 4/26/2011 9:52 AM, David E Jones wrote: >> And yes, not every idea is a good one and many things really don't belong in >> the framework. Putting things in themes instead of the framework is a good >> idea for many things. And on the topic of themes, it would be nice (and >> reduce the incredible amount of redundancy in themes) if the themes were >> limited to visual artifacts such as images and style sheets, instead of also >> including various templates. Take these hugely redundant theme templates >> (especially for header) and combine that with the practice of parameterizing >> every little thing... and you have an error-prone tangle that makes >> customization difficult and discourages innovation and improvement in the >> project. >> >> Sorry for the rant, but this kind of thing has been going on for a long time >> and is another reason why I still maintain that the ONLY way OFBiz will ever >> have a clean framework separation, and even a clean framework, is if it is a >> separate project maintained by a different group of people than maintains >> the more business-oriented functionality of OFBiz. >> >> -David >> >> >> >> On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:37 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >> >>> I agree with Adrian, the style element alone already gives more that enough >>> control to theme designers. >>> >>> Every web developer has (or should have) at least a basic understanding of >>> css and every time we step away from such a standard (like with additional >>> attributes in the widgets) we make OFBiz a little harder to use and >>> maintain, it's plenty hard enough already. Not every idea is a good idea >>> and not every good idea is really needed. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> HotWax Media >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>> >>> On 26/04/2011, at 8:37 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>>> Main style sheet: >>>> >>>> .button-bar ul a.create,.button-bar a.create { >>>> padding:6px 10px 6px 10px; >>>> } >>>> >>>> Optional icons style sheet: >>>> >>>> .button-bar ul a.create,.button-bar a.create { >>>> background: url(../images/button_sprite.png) no-repeat 0px 0px; >>>> padding:6px 10px 6px 30px; >>>> } >>>> >>>> No changes to markup needed. It is the same thing we do to switch >>>> rendering from LTR to RTL. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> On 4/25/2011 1:19 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote: >>>>> Your are against me ? My popularity increases :) >>>>> >>>>> At this time : >>>>> Screen definition : >>>>> ------------------------ >>>>> <link target="EditExampleLayer" ... style="buttontext create"/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Output html render : >>>>> --------------------------- >>>>> <a class="buttontext create" id="FindExample_LF_1_link" >>>>> href="javascript:void(0);">Nouvel exemple</a> >>>>> >>>>> Style theme definition : >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> style.css : >>>>> .button-bar ul a.create,.button-bar a.create { >>>>> background: url(../images/button_sprite.png) no-repeat 0px 0px; >>>>> padding:6px 10px 6px 30px; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My proposition, after your first remark : >>>>> Screen definition : >>>>> ------------------------ >>>>> <link target="EditExampleLayer" ... style="buttontext"> >>>>> <icons name="add"> >>>>> </link> >>>>> >>>>> Or >>>>> <link target="EditExampleLayer" ... style="buttontext" icons="add"> >>>>> >>>>> Or >>>>> <link target="EditExampleLayer" ... style="buttontext" purpose="add"> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Output html render : >>>>> --------------------------- >>>>> <a class="buttontext add" ...>Nouvel exemple</a> >>>>> >>>>> Style theme definition : >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> icons.css : >>>>> .button-bar ul a.add,.button-bar a.add { >>>>> background: url(../images/button_sprite.png) no-repeat 0px 0px; >>>>> padding:6px 10px 6px 30px; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> What's changes ? What is broken? Your are against widgets controlling >>>>> styling but at this time all icons define by style attribute on elements >>>>> to be used by theme. I propose more fexibility to explain the element's >>>>> purpose that will be work by screen renderer and after by theme designer. >>>>> >>>>> To continue update icons improvement : >>>>> <set field="iconsModeViewEnumId >>>>> from-field="userPreferences.VT_ICONS_MODE_VIEW"/> <!--If User whant to >>>>> view icons--> >>>>> <set field="iconsStyleLocation" from-field="userPreferences.VT_ICONS_" >>>>> global="true"/><!--If User have preference on icons to use--> >>>>> <service service-name="getIconsVisualThemeResources"><!--return the css >>>>> file to use that contains icons definition--> >>>>> <field-map field-name="visualThemeId"/> >>>>> <field-map field-name="iconsModeViewEnumId"/> >>>>> </service> >>>>> >>>>> Nicolas >>>>> >>>>> Le 25/04/2011 14:25, Adrian Crum a écrit : >>>>>> I'm against the idea of widgets controlling styling. Period. I am >>>>>> against Nicolas or any other developer deciding which icons get used and >>>>>> where - that is a decision that should be reserved for theme designers. >>>>>> >>>>>> To summarize my view: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Icon display and the choice of icons should be left to the theme >>>>>> designer. Therefore, icon references should be kept in stylesheets. >>>>>> 2. If a theme designer wants to give the user an option to use icons or >>>>>> not, then the theme's templates can conditionally load a cascading >>>>>> stylesheet that includes icons. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/25/2011 5:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>> On a second thought, we may use another technology than CSS and still >>>>>>> have styles, see for instance in POS: posstyles.xml. So yes, >>>>>>> styles add flexibility and independence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At 1st glance, Adrian's proposition sounds better from flexibility POV. >>>>>>> But, if I have well understood, is still limited to icons or >>>>>>> not in the whole OFBiz (like Google bar) when Nicolas's allows to set >>>>>>> it by screens (why not even by form fields or menu entries?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this is really an important point in UI and should be discussed >>>>>>> by the whole developers community, any other opinions, >>>>>>> suggestions? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum"<adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> >>>>>>>> You can control icon display through user preferences without >>>>>>>> embedding the icons in markup. A user setting can conditionally load >>>>>>>> a stylesheet that references the icons. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not against having new icons in the project. An expanded selection >>>>>>>> of icons is a great tool for theme designers to use. But >>>>>>>> their use should be determined by the theme designers - not by screen >>>>>>>> widgets. The OFBiz community has worked hard over the past 4 >>>>>>>> years trying to get styling out of markup and into stylesheets. I will >>>>>>>> push hard against any effort to reverse that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/25/2011 1:32 AM, Nicolas Malin wrote: >>>>>>>>> Adrian I understand your remark but I'm not completely in agreement >>>>>>>>> with that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Icons is at once of the most visual but also a help user. We could >>>>>>>>> associated directly to a themes but the reality is more >>>>>>>>> complex. If I take the GTK project, every user can define if he wants >>>>>>>>> icons, icons and text or only text independently of the >>>>>>>>> themes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On issue OFBIZ-4259 I do an error to use icons through img because >>>>>>>>> although they are images, they are a more complex management. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not for their exploitation only through css or style because >>>>>>>>> although they results from it. We limit their display rendering >>>>>>>>> on one technology et style don't allow user preference managment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I propose to continue icons integration, add a new element in screen >>>>>>>>> renderer that indicates what icons use on menu and form >>>>>>>>> field. Thence following the user preference and then the themes we >>>>>>>>> display icons or not. Whether rendering css by then or >>>>>>>>> treatment with an image, it will be template renderer are made >>>>>>>>> their work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nicolas >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 25/04/2011 05:21, Ryan Foster a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> I thought the original idea that Nicolas proposed, was for this to >>>>>>>>>> be configurable by theme (adding a >>>>>>>>>> layoutSettings.VT_ICONS_LOC to data config). I think that you >>>>>>>>>> should be able to turn icons on and off as well as change the >>>>>>>>>> icon library location. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ryan L. Foster >>>>>>>>>> 801.671.0769 >>>>>>>>>> cont...@ryanlfoster.com >>>>>>>>>> ryanlfoster.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2011, at 6:29 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The main problem I have with this is the idea that theme design has >>>>>>>>>>> been taken away from the theme designer. In other words, >>>>>>>>>>> icons should be added by the theme designer - they should not >>>>>>>>>>> appear in all themes by default. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2011 5:26 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> It's actually related to >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4259 and r1095984 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did not see any issues in Flat Grey, could you post a screenshot? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If it's really blocking (I doubt we can't fix any related issues), >>>>>>>>>>>> it should be easy to configure with a property in >>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties to bypass image rendering in menus >>>>>>>>>>>> (HtmlMenuRenderer.java around line 500) and buttons >>>>>>>>>>>> (MacroFormRenderer.java look for >>>>>>>>>>>> submitField.getImageLocation(context) or maybe rather >>>>>>>>>>>> ModelFormField.java but this one >>>>>>>>>>>> existed before, see >>>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1095984 for >>>>>>>>>>>> files changed) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum"<adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that icons were added to menu items - maybe in rev 1088549. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a chance we can revert that? Or at least make it >>>>>>>>>>>>> configurable on a per-theme basis? The new icons break the layout >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Flat Gray theme. It would be helpful if a theme can >>>>>>>>>>>>> choose to use the icons or not use them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>
