On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 09:04, Marius Dumitru Florea <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
If it extends gwt-user it's should be xwiki-gwt-user IMO even if i don't like the name that much it's GWT choice so we should follow it when extending it. > >> >> 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 > -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
