I will once I have something materialized. All code snippets and thoughts
right now, besides I'm still refactoring the code base.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

> Taher,
>
> Maybe you could share your ideas, and even work, in a Jira?
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 01/12/2016 à 10:53, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>
>> I am working on this
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2016 12:48 PM, "Jacques Le Roux" <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Totally agreed!
>>>
>>> BTW Gareth Cater told me he did a work related to "custom-widget" (he
>>> used
>>> the same term but not sure it's the same thing). I'll try to contact him
>>> about that. Has anybody else begun to work on that?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 01/12/2016 à 10:38, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>>
>>>> That was already discussed. My opinion is still not to allow it BUT, you
>>>> can create a DSL for something, let's call it custom-widget. Then, all
>>>> that
>>>> you need to do to drop down to FTL is to create macros in the theme to
>>>> implement your special widget.
>>>>
>>>> This way, you can maintain purity of the widgets while at the same time
>>>> allowing you to muck with HTML. In a sense, we tell our developers, do
>>>> whatever you want, OUTSIDE. So this custom-widget becomes the gateway to
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That would be good, I know we can do a lot with form widgets backed by
>>>> js
>>>>
>>>>> scripts and I'm always been a form widgets enthusiast (if not fanatic
>>>>> :D).
>>>>>
>>>>> But there should be also a way to allow to call FTL from screens
>>>>> because,
>>>>> in an ecommerce alike situation, it's not realistic to do it all with
>>>>> form
>>>>> widgets (at least as is now). Could be allowed on certain component for
>>>>> instance or using properties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 01/12/2016 à 09:56, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> I think by introducing a new DSL we can enforce no leakage of HTML /
>>>>> FTL
>>>>>
>>>>>> into any widgets (I'm assuming this is what you guys are talking
>>>>>> about)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicely said, thanks Julien :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 01/12/2016 à 09:46, Julien NICOLAS a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope that, like code source convention, people will respect the
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> done and respect people behind them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that I'll do my best to explain the reason of the work I'll
>>>>>>>> begin, hope that it will be accepted by the community, hope that it
>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>> implemented in all OFBiz screens. I know that the OFBiz community
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>> people and respect that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you true, it could happens that somebody fail to follow rules, I
>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>> I see it in code review and ask for an update ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm quite sure that when you'll be charmed by this UI standard,
>>>>>>>> you'll
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> also a rules keeper <3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Julien.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 30/11/2016 21:16, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So when you speak of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a super-structure that will be used in place of currently
>>>>>>>>> conventions
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> are not always respected
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how do you envision that with that new 'super-structure'
>>>>>>>>> conventions
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> be respected?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>>>>>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>>>>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Julien
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Inline ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le 30/11/2016 à 10:02, Julien NICOLAS a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 30/11/2016 08:51, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      - Each screen must be linked to a screen structure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What would be this screen structure? You don't need to develop
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> this stage, just that I can't vision what it would be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This structure is to follow the a UI standard that can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> managed
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> theme. For example, the find screen can be define as :
>>>>>>>>>>>      - A research field area
>>>>>>>>>>>      - A result area
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, I see, we have already this concept in screen widget.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If all the find screen could be linked to this structure, it will
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> easier for theme to manage it's own template of search screen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean that it would be a super-structure that will be used in
>>>>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> currently conventions which are not always respected, I see.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It will be included in the main decorator that will also linked
>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> structure, so theme can manage to change the template. And when
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>> the theme, it could be a completely different look and feel :)
>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I explain well my thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Got it, thanks :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why we need a new component to test new theme ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I start working with OFBiz, I was so surprised that the UI is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heavy. Then I was thinking that I have to improve the UI to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a best
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one. After several try I understand that the actual UI is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final user
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface. It is a developer one. It's a developer UI because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the features developed. But definitively, we can't provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UI to final users, we have to simplify it. In the same times,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> delete the current UI because developers need to improve it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> features that will help us to deploy new features to our final
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this new component, we can implement an existing component
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplified and ready for the new theme(s).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean we could take and existing component, say example for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and would simply it at the UI level. I picked example because
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>> rather simple and contains demonstration of features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I mean to define a component (party, product, facility,
>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> start to re-implement (using the existing services) but in a more
>>>>>>>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>>>>> way (without all the features, selecting only the main ones).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In conclusion, if the new component dedicated for test a new
>>>>>>>>>>> theme
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> match to the community needs, Taher think to a super simplified
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> user interface that facilitate developers to improve the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface without any constraint that allow developers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another thing I can't vision at this stage, no hurry, I guess
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, too many thing to explain, I have to add details about this
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll do it soon ^^
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did not get a chance to look yet at the POC Nicolas, Gil and
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> working on. I guess I'd get the ideas from there then?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>

Reply via email to