Hi Marius, I regards to the skin, I do not see why we would require another template language. IMO we should get rid of all those .vm in favor of our rendering engine. It looks now odd to have those templates bootstrapping our far more evolved rendering system. We may of course integrate other scripting languages that provides similar feature to the velocity macro.
Regards, On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 for a fresh look, so for Flamingo. Regarding the templates, we need > to take into account that Velocity is starting to become an old > technology (last release is more than 3 years ago) so it may be a good > time to look for alternatives. On the server side there is FreeMarker > (last release in June 2013). We could also decide to use wiki syntax > in the templates. On the client side there are standalone libraries, > such as Handlebars used by Ember, or framework-specific > implementations like in the case of Angular. > > Thanks, > Marius > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:49 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Personally all I know is that we need a fresh look in XWiki 6.x so for > me there's no doubt that we want Flamingo. > > > > What needs to be discussed is how to get there. There are 2 paths: > > A) modify our templates/css heavily to use Bootstrap and base the new > Flamingo on that > > B) keep the current templates as much as possible, with possibly some > changes and move templates specific to Colibri in the Colibri skin and > templates specific to Flamingo in the flamingo skin, keeping common > templates in the templates directory. No bootstrap integration. > > > > Pros and Cons of solution A: > > ============================ > > + foundation for the future > > + allow us to perform cleanup of our templates > > + ability to use bootstrap themes (an issue we've had for a long since > so far we've never been able to support more than 1 skin - We could do > color changes but not structural changes) > > - more costly > > - will take more time to have Flamingo ready for end users > > - need to rethink the notion of Color Themes into a more global notion > of Skin Theme which affects not only colors but also other parameters > (centered or not, etc) > > > > Pros and Cons of solution B: > > ============================ > > + less costly > > + quicker to get in the hands of our users and thus quicker adoption of > XWiki as a product > > - only able to support one skin as we've done in the past > > - not building for the future and not able to leverage the work done by > others on bootstrap > > > > Obviously A is the best option if you have all the devs in the world and > all the time in the world... :) Personally I'd like and need to see an > evaluation of the work required to do A) before choosing anything. What can > be done in 6.0, 6.1, etc? In which XWiki release would we be able to see > Flamingo ready if we were to do A? > > > > What is important IMO is to be able to show UI improvements/progress in > every release of XWiki (6.0, 6.1, etc) since we've been lagging a bit > behind on this. > > > > Thanks! > > -Vincent > > > > On 24 Feb 2014 at 09:44:57, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) ([email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Cathy, > >> > > >> > You have launch a couple of not so easy threads, and probably why no > one > >> > have found enough time yet to follow up. I really hope this will > change in > >> > the upcoming days, since the skin evolution is very important aspect > that > >> > really need to be thoroughly discussed. > >> > > >> > As I see it, choosing between 1. "keeping the colibri look" using the > Junco > >> > skin, and 2. using a fresh look like flamingo, based on your developed > >> > arguments, is more a question about what do we do with our current > >> > templates, and how free are we to change them ? Could we afford and > impose > >> > a new improvement to our markups and templates, while providing enough > >> > backward compatibility for existing extensions. > >> > > >> > In your Bootstrap integration thread, I develop the technical aspect > around > >> > these markup issues, showing, I hope, that we have the occasion to > smoothly > >> > evolve our skin without getting stuck by the past. Regarding the > design > >> > aspect, your Flamingo proposal is far more refreshing and appealing, > >> > providing a more responsive look that I hope could extends our user > base. > >> > If we could implement it without extending bootstrap, allowing it to > be > >> > restyled with any bootstrap variants, it would make it a very > versatile > >> > skin. > >> > > >> > So, if we could target that new skin, while keeping an acceptable > >> > compromise for existing stuff, I see no reason not to move forward. > This is > >> > not really a choice between 1) and 2), since what I propose is to use > Junco > >> > to provide a backward compatibility CSS, and for a while also a > modernized > >> > colibri skin using our existing templates, and to also evolve our > >> > templates, using a more bootstrap based markups to produce that more > >> > appealing Flamingo skin. So, it is more 2) than 1), since we will only > >> > target 2) for new stuffs. > >> > > >> > >> So what you are saying is that: > >> - if someone wants a backwards compatible skin (with Colibri and with > >> current extensions on e.x.o) should use Junco and > >> - if someone wants a new skin (where we implement new functionality) > should > >> use Flamingo. > >> > >> From your e-mail I understand that your preference goes towards > Flamingo. > >> I admit that Junco is more of a compromise solution for our problems and > >> I've seen it as in intermediate step towards Flamingo, while still > >> providing new functionality and making us advanced (in the shortest time > >> possible). > >> > >> The issue is our development resources and I think it would be hard for > us > >> to officially maintain 2 skins. > >> > >> So maybe some solutions would be: > >> A. Officially: Colibri + Junco + Flamingo > >> - Maintain support for Colibri, but not innovate. We should support this > >> skin for 1 year at least; > >> - Support Junco, as in intermediary solution for Colibri and Flamingo; > >> - Support Flamingo (new stuff). > >> > >> B. Officially: Colibri + Flamingo > >> - Maintain support for Colibri, but not innovate; > >> - Support Flamingo; > >> - Have Junco on e.x.o as a backwards compatibility solution. > >> > >> C. Officially: Junco + Flamingo > >> - Stop support for Colibri since Junco will kind of duplicate it (while > >> adding the Bootstrap functionality); > >> - Support Junco > >> - Support Flamingo. > >> > >> These are just ideas. > >> Thanks, > >> Caty > >> > >> > >> > > >> > WDYT ? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > devs mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devs mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
