On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sep 22, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 09/21/2011 03:41 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi Eddy and all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sep 21, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi devs, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As part for the 3.2 Roadmap, the plan for the workspaces feature > was > >>>> to > >>>>>> add > >>>>>>>> some hooks into the platform that could accept a workspaces > >> extension > >>>> if > >>>>>> an > >>>>>>>> admin decided to install it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Without adding these hooks, there currently isn`t any mechanism > >> (like > >>>>>>>> Interface Extensions, but not limited to that) that allows a > simple > >>>>>>>> application to modify whatever it wishes (like user profile > >> sections, > >>>>>>>> administration sections, top menu, etc.) so I went ahead and added > >>>> some > >>>>>> code > >>>>>>>> into the platform that executes only when the workspaces extension > >>>> (wiki > >>>>>>>> pages and component/service) is installed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't like this too much for 2 reasons: > >>>>>>> 1) the workspaces app is not part of the platform ATM. It would be > >> like > >>>>>> someone we don't know coding an application and sending us a patch > to > >>>> modify > >>>>>> the platform code to test if his own personal app is installed or > not > >>>>>>> 2) it keeps adding kludges instead of finding a real solution > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To help with point 1), we could vote the fact that we're ok to have > >>>>>> workspaces in the platform but that doesn't solve 2). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We could look at it point by point and find a solution for each > >> point. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> IMO ATM you should use jsx to add those entries so that no change > is > >>>>>> required in the platform. I know some of you don't like this > solution > >>>> but > >>>>>> IMO the best right now when the application is not part of the > >> platform. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Then we need to open a discussion for adding extension points for > >> each > >>>>>> location where you need it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> One solution would be to use XClasses to provide extension points. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Point 1: Ability to add User tabs. There are several ways in which > >> this > >>>>>> can be achieved. > >>>>>>> Example solution: Introduce a UserTabClass and add as many tabs as > >>>> there > >>>>>> are UseTabClass objects in the wiki > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Point 2: Ability to add menu entries in the top level menu. > >>>>>>> Example solution: Have a MenuEntryClass and a MenuItemEntryClass, > >> each > >>>>>> having 2 fields: one field for the menu entry name and one for the > >>>> position. > >>>>>> The construct the menu dynamically > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The issue with these solutions is performance. A solution would be > to > >>>> add > >>>>>> a module and have java listener listening to object changes + an API > >> to > >>>>>> return the data. However this maybe slightly too complex. BTW it > could > >>>> be > >>>>>> interesting to offer a generic script service to do this (the idea > >>>> would be > >>>>>> to offer an active cache that would refresh when an XObject is > >> updated). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Of course another solution would simply be to bite the bullet and > >> start > >>>>>> implementing IX… ;) (I need to read again Sergiu's design doc about > it > >>>> since > >>>>>> I have forgotten how Sergiu planned to implement it) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The major blocker for me is the raw velocity parsing done on the .vm > >>>>>> templates. One step forward would be to implement support for any > kind > >>>>>> of templates for generating the response, using the full power of > the > >>>>>> rendering engine. But that's something for another thread. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Any other idea? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Accept Edy's patches as a temporary solution, pushing for a proper > >>>>>> cleanup in the next releases. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't know how urgent these changes are, we should decide together > >> if > >>>>>> it's OK to skip these changes for 3.2 and instead work on a more > >>>>>> flexible way of integrating them in 3.3. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Feature-wise, the work proposed by Edy is very good. In short, it > turns > >>>> XEM > >>>>> into a tool that can be used to easily manage wiki-based communities, > >>>> which > >>>>> is a feature that I see users requesting a lot these days. People I > >> talk > >>>>> with keep asking me about social and communities in XWiki and I've > seen > >>>>> several workaround implementations on projects I'm involved with > >> already. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thus I'm very much in favor of making them available in XE 3.2, > >>>> especially > >>>>> given that Edy spent a lot of time working on them to have them ready > >> for > >>>>> the release. > >>>>> > >>>>> I agree that his solution is far from clean, but we're still waiting > >> for > >>>> a > >>>>> clean IX mechanism that I do not believe will be ready for 3.3. Thus > >> this > >>>>> means that waiting for the IX mechanism to make the Workspaces > feature > >>>>> available would delay it by about 6 months. I'm not in favor of this > >>>>> solution. > >>>> > >>>> Using jsx doesn't require any change in the platform. This means that > XE > >>>> right now is compatible with the workspaces application. That's the > >> point > >>>> and how extensions should be: independent of the platform (no hard > >> links). > >>>> > >>>> So there's no issue of timeframe if Eddy is ok to use JSX. > >>>> > >>>> JSX is currently our clean solution for IX. There's no other way ATM. > >> This > >>>> is how anyone adds UI elements cleanly to an existing XE (apart from > >>>> modifying templates/pages but that's not clean since an upgrade will > >>>> overwrite those changes or at the very minimum you'll need to do a > >> merge). > >>>> > >>>> ATM I'm very strongly in favor of using JSX for this kind of > integration > >>>> (for extensions) till we propose a better IX solution. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I'm -0 tending to -1 to advertise this as the clean way of integrating > >> such > >>> feature. When you say this, the message I read is "you can do it if you > >> want > >>> but your code will be awkward". Until we have IX, I prefer we accept to > >>> introduce hooks the way the "forgot username/reset password > application" > >> is > >>> built upon. At least the awkwardness is shared between the platform and > >> the > >>> feature. > >> > >> So you're willing for everyone in the world to submit patches to > >> xwiki-platform to ask us to add static hooks for their own applications > ? > >> Now it's my turn to be -1 ;) > >> > >> Also it's not enough to give a -1 jerome, you need to have arguments and > >> explain why it's a problem... > >> > > > > I didn't really gave -1 ; and I explained why I think it's bad. > > Could you explain again because I don't remember it and I don't see it your > previous email? > First, as I said, it makes the extension code awkward. Injecting UI elements from JavaScript might keep the platform code clean, it makes the extension code dirty. Second, IMO if all (bundled) extensions were to do this, you would have a very clumsy page load, especially on low end machines running a (relatively) old browser. You would have a latency of couple of seconds between the time you think the page is loaded and the time you can actually interact with the page. Especially if some of those extensions do perform AJAX requests, like the annotations extension is doing right now. In my opinion this is bad, and as much as possible the DOM sent to the browser should be complete (there is almost no extra cost to do such in comparison with the initial cost of the HTTP request). Right now you don't feel it because only annotations are build this way. Make it 10+ such extensions on IE8 on a not so powerful machine and you will feel it, I'm pretty sure. > > > I'm not talking about external features. I think if we were to integrate > > workspaces, it would be a feature we would advertise (application > packaged > > by default, mentionned in the release notes and all - am I wrong ?) > > ATM workspaces is not integrated. It's supposed to be an extension. No vote > has been sent to integrate it yet AFAIK. > OK, I didn't understand it like this, sorry about that. Indeed I don't think it's good to have hooks for external extensions. (my vision is: XE is the product we ship right now, and it's ok to make sacrifices like we did for forgot username/reset password application to make a better product) Jerome. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > Jerome. > > > > > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >>> Jerome > >>> > >>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> -Vincent > >>>> > >>>>> Guillaume > >>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>> -Vincent > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I`ve created http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6991 with some > >>>> details > >>>>>> about > >>>>>>>> what I have done and made a pull request at > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/pull/24 since I did not > >> want > >>>> to > >>>>>> rush > >>>>>>>> at applying the changes without running them by you guys. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I`ve broken the issue down to subtasks with separate commits to > make > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> review easier. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There currently is a demo server for the workspaces feature at > >>>>>>>> http://wiki30-demo.xwiki.com but I will have to update it > tomorrow > >>>> with > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> latest version. Not much changed, you can see the visible changes > in > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> specific jira subtasks (screenshots). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The goal would be for this to make it into 3.2 so that people > could > >>>> then > >>>>>>>> install (the soon to be released) workspaces extension and try it > >> out. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please take some time, if possible, to look over the proposed > >> changes > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> spot any problems. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Eduard > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> devs mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jérôme Velociter > >>> Winesquare > >>> http://www.winesquare.net/ > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> devs mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devs mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jérôme Velociter > > Winesquare > > http://www.winesquare.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Jérôme Velociter Winesquare http://www.winesquare.net/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
