Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > On 10/19/2009 09:41 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >> Hi Sergiu, >> >> Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: >>> On 10/19/2009 03:37 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >>>> Hi devs, >>>> >>>> I'd like to create a xwiki-gwt-user module in platform-web which will >>>> contain classes from the util and widget WYSIWYG packages. This module >>>> corresponds to the com.google.gwt.user package which contains utility >>>> and UI-related classed. The module will have this structure: >>>> >>>> org.xwiki.gwt.user.client.* (classes from the current util package) >>>> org.xwiki.gwt.user.client.widget.* (classes from the current widget >>>> package) >>>> >>>> Since I want this module to be generic (an extension of what GWT >>>> currently provides) I'd like to exclude the following class/packages >>>> which are XWiki specific: >>>> >>>> * util.Attachment >> util.ResourceName too >> >>>> * widget.explorer.* >>>> * widget.wizard.util.* >>>> * widget.PageSelector >>>> * widget.SpaceSelector >>>> * widget.WikiSelector >>>> >>>> These can remain in the WYSIWYG source tree for the moment but I'm >>>> considering moving them to the gwt module which is XWiki specific. >>>> >>>> You can see the current sources here >>>> http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/platform/web/trunk/wysiwyg/src/main/java/com/xpn/xwiki/wysiwyg/client/ >>>> >>>> Here's my +1. WDYT? >>> Why "user"? It doesn't look like a user thing to me, perhaps I'm wrong. >>> Can you explain what this code does in more details? >> GWT has 3 main jars: >> >> gwt-servlet-1.7.0.jar >> gwt-user-1.7.0.jar >> gwt-dev-1.7.0-linux.jar >> >> Some of the main packages from the user jar are: >> >> com.google.gwt.dom >> com.google.gwt.emul >> com.google.gwt.user >> >> The dom package exposes, obviously, the JavaScript DOM API in Java code. >> We have extended what this package offers and created the xwiki-gwt-dom >> module. >> >> The user package contains utility classes like Timer, Random or >> DeferredCommand and basic widgets (ui.* package) like CheckBox or >> RichTextArea. We have extended what this package offers with other >> useful utility classes like Console, ShortcutKeyManager or >> DeferredUpdater and other widgets (widget.* package) like >> VerticalResizePanel, improved RichTextArea, generic dialog wizard. >> >> In order to be consistent I proposed a xwiki-gwt-user module. I'm open >> to your suggestions regarding the name. >> >> Anyway, this module will be generic (reusable in any GWT application) >> without any XWiki specific code. >> >> Hope it's clear now, >> Marius > > OK, so the "user" name comes from GWT. I agree with the consistency > reason, but my problem is that for those that don't know GWT (like me), > this name is misleading, since it doesn't suggest utility classes and > user interface elements. OK, maybe it could suggest *user* interface a > little, but only if you're searching for this connection. So, should we > stick with the "user" name for consistency, which would make users of > the editor coming from the GWT world happy, but which is misleading for > those that aren't familiar with GWT. or should we choose something more > meaningful?
I'm fine with both options. Let's see what others think. > > How about org.xwiki.gwt.utils and org.xwiki.gwt.widgets as two distinct > modules? Can this work from a dependency PoV, or are the two modules > tightly connected? Right now there are only a few cross dependencies and I can fix them. But in general we can have: 1) a utility class used by two or more widgets (e.g. StringUtils) 2) a utility class that uses one or more widgets (e.g. TextBoxNumberFilter) In other words, if I write a widget and I discover that I need a generic utility class that might be useful for other widgets too then I'm going to place that utility class in the utility package. On the other hand, if I write an application and I discover that I need a generic utility class that makes my life easier while working with a specific widget then I'm going to place that utility class also in the utility package. I could move it in the widgets module under that specific widget but then the widgets module will become widgets&widgetUtilities and I'm going to ask myself why I have these two separate modules. If we agree to fix 2) by moving those utility classes in the widgets module then I'm fine with having two modules: utils and widgets. Otherwise I'm more for having a single module. Thanks, Marius _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
