2014-04-16 17:02 GMT+02:00 Marius Dumitru Florea < [email protected]>:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jeremie BOUSQUET > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Just some thoughts reading this ... > > > > > > 2014-04-16 14:48 GMT+02:00 [email protected] <[email protected]>: > > > >> Hi Marius, > >> > >> On 16 Apr 2014 at 13:11:34, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > >> [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > > Hi Marius, > >> > > > >> > > On 10 Apr 2014 at 21:07:13, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > >> [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > But developers already needs to create a UI Extension, why not a > >> panel? > >> > >> > >> > >> Because for the panel you'd have to write code.. Moreover, we > >> > >> discussed about the fact that the non-typed parameters of the UI > >> > >> Extension are not always a good idea and that for the application > >> > >> panel a dedicated class would have been better (with typed > >> > >> properties). There is a big difference between having: > >> > >> > >> > >> icon: myIcon.png > >> > >> > >> > >> and > >> > >> > >> > >> content: > >> > >> #if ($panelWidth == "small") > >> > >> [[image:myIcon.png]] > >> > >> #else > >> > >> ## Display stuff as a list > >> > >> #end > >> > >> > >> > >> The first is semantic (data) and can be reused in other places. The > >> > >> second would have to take the image from a property in order to not > >> > >> duplicate the application icon, so more code.. The first is clear > to > >> > >> the developer: he has to specify the application icon. The second > is > >> > >> not, without reading documentation about what to write in the panel > >> > >> content in order to have the application icon available for the > >> > >> application bar. > >> > >> > >> > >> > Maybe we should provide a template for this kind of panels so it > >> would be > >> > >> > very easy to create a new one, or a wizard that generates it > easily? > >> > >> > >> > >> I find it awkward to ask the dev to create a panel in order to > display > >> > >> an icon on the application bar. > >> > > > >> > > It would be awkward if that was the goal but it’s not :) > >> > > > >> > > >> > > There’s no notion of AppBar! > >> > > >> > Think as a user, you always ask me to do so :). > >> > >> hehe ;) > >> > >> > A user that sees the > >> > flamingo skin for the first time will notice a vertical bar on the > >> > left side that has icons on it, most of which seem to correspond to > >> > applications (features). He will never think those are panels! The > >> > fact that the left thin vertical bar (to not call it AppBar) is a > >> > panel bar is just an implementation detail for me. > >> > >> In this case you’re saying that implementing the AppBar as several > panels > >> is bad idea (i.e. it’s not natural) and the AppBar should be a single > Panel. > >> > >> For me either you agree about having each app provide a panel or you > don’t > >> agree about having apps provide their panels. Agreeing about having one > >> panel per app and then trying to autogenerate the panels seem too much a > >> tweak/hack to me and smell of a bad design. > >> > >> > > It just means that if an app wants to have a panel on the side, it > >> needs to define it as they have always done (see blog app for ex) :) > >> > > >> > We're talking about the left side, the thin vertical bar. The app will > >> > want to put an icon on it, not a panel. A panel is just the means by > >> > which the app is going to make the icon available for the user. > >> > >> The thin bar can be anywhere, on the left, on the right, for any kind of > >> panel. The idea is to still call Panels the panel technology. We’re just > >> adding panel sizes. > >> > >> Again if you don’t agree about having panels provided by apps then we > need > >> to materialize the AppBar by having it as a specific Panel (and thus > have a > >> custom UI to configure that AppBar). > >> > >> > > So if an App wants that its users to display a panel to link to > them, > >> then they do the users a favour by creating such a panel for the users > to > >> use. > >> > > >> > Again, the App doesn't want "to display a panel”. > >> > >> The app doesn’t want to display anything. It provides panels for users > who > >> use to use them to be able to do so. They can provide a shortcut panel > if > >> they wish. If you don’t agree with this (which is fine) then shortcuts > >> should not be implemented as panels IMO and instead we should have an > >> AppBar panel. > >> > >> > The App wants to > >> > allow the users to have a shortcut. In flamingo we display app > >> > shortcuts on the left side. > >> > >> Not quite. App shortcuts can be anywhere: on the left, on the right, in > 2 > >> columns or in 1 column. It just happens that by default we’ll position > them > >> on the left in one column. > >> > >> > So apps will want to have their shortcuts > >> > displayed on the left side. If what it takes to display a shortcut on > >> > the left side is to create a panel then the App will provide a panel, > >> > but we should make app devs a favor by simplifying this as mush as > >> > possible (eliminating the need of creating the panel and copy-pasting > >> > code is possible). > >> > >> Well you’re making a good point that Panels may not be the most natural > >> way to represent an app shortcut. I think I agree that it would be more > >> natural to have an AppBar Panel (that can be configured with a specific > UI > >> to decide what apps it should display - Personally I’d prefer calling it > >> Favorite Applications Panel and keep the existing Applications Panel to > >> list all apps). > >> > > > > Both could be just variants of the same Panel adjusting to the width of > the > > panel left/right area, what do you think ? > > Ie, with a "large" panel width, you would display what is in > "Applications > > Panel", with a "thin" panel width, you would display what would be in > > "Favorite Applications Panel". > > I mean, the current "applications panel" could allow end-users to choose > > their "favorite apps", and group the rest in the "..." or "other apps" > > shortcut (which it currently does except it doesn't use the wording > > "favorite"). Basically both represent a list of links to applications > > available in 1-click, along with a list of other applications available > in > > 2-clicks, both available from any page (panel concept). > > Another example: if this "thin panel column" / "AppBar" is a set of > > specific (distinct) Panels that you can order as you want with panel > > wizard, it means you can put some other completely unrelated Panels in > > between those applications panels (like a stats panel, a toc panel, ...). > > > Nice and flexible, but does it mean anything in terms of UI ? Would you > > ever want to do that ? I'm not sure ... > > Good point. Indeed I'm starting to think that having a Favorite > Applications Panel to handle the app icons is better than having a > panel for each icon. > > > > > > >> > >> > > Autogenerating panel would make this a special case and I’m not sure > >> we need a special case here. > >> > > >> > While discussing with Guillaume in private, I end up realising that > >> > what we are missing is the ability to 'configure' the panels. Right > >> > now you can add a panel only once (and even if you add it twice it's > >> > going to display the same thing). But what if I create a generic > >> > panel, that has some parameters, and I would like to add this panel > >> > twice, with different values for the parameters. I can't. But if you > >> > think, you can do this with wiki macros. I can call the same macro > >> > with different parameters in the document content. Moreover, most of > >> > the current panels are not easily reusable, for instance if I want to > >> > display the same thing inside the document content or in a dashboard > >> > widget I have to either copy the panel content or write some Velocity > >> > code. For the future I think we should investigate implementing panels > >> > as wiki macros. With this, we can use directly the wiki macro that > >> > Guillaume is going to use right now in a panel. > >> > >> So you mean removing PanelClass/Sheet/Template (i.e. remove the notion > of > >> panels or have it only mean the left and right areas) and instead when > >> someone wants to write a panel they need to write a wiki macro? Thus in > the > >> left and rights areas, you’d configure the list of macros to use with > their > >> parameters, similar to the {{gallery}} macro for images? > >> > >> This means we wouldn’t be able to list panels anymore, except by having > a > >> “Panel” category for all macros representing panels. > >> > >> Or do you mean having a {{panel}} macro that bridges PanelClass xobjects > >> and macros: > >> - keep PanelClass and pages having PanelClass xobjets as now > >> - {{panel reference=“Panels.Applications”/}} > >> - {{panel reference=“MySpace.MyPanelPage” > parameters=“param1=value1,…"/}} > >> - change the way we define the panels to display on the left/right areas > >> by using this {{panel}} macro. For example by having a Left/RightPanels > >> page. > >> > >> ? > >> > > > > > Is it really a problem of panels architecture, or merely a problem of > some > > lack of macros ? > > My "problem" was that we have two notions "panels" and "macros" and I > thought that we can implement panels using macros. But we can't > because we cannot set rights on macro calls (a panel would be a macro > call in a left/right side area). > > > If you want to put same content in 2 panels, or in a panel and a > dashboard > > gadget, to me it means that you miss a rendering macro because you should > > never duplicate your code. > > Yes, this is the solution. > > > I suppose in most cases with this principle, you would never write any > > content in a Panel except a call to a macro with some parameters, > because I > > think you can almost always find a use-case where it'd be interesting to > > put any panel content in a dashboard gadget or somewhere else. > > But I suppose also it was not like that because initially (maybe still) > the > > idea was more to be able to include a Panel everywhere you want (like for > > Statistics for example). But being able to include a content through a > > rendering macro wherever you want (in a Panel, in a gadget, inline in a > > page) seem more flexible. > > Yes, but you cannot set rights unless you bind the macro call to a > document. > Well you would set rights at the level of the container of the macro, so at page level (a page that could contain a Panel, dashboard gadgets, or just be a "plain" page), which anyway until now represent the finest level you can set access rights on (until you add access rights to objects or macro calls ;) ). A dashboard gadget is just something that wraps a macro call with additional layout info (column/row), I imagine a panel could be seen the same way. But you can also write any specific content in a dashboard gadget (some groovy script, some velocity script, several macro calls...) - and it's the same for a Panel. It's just an UI thing with a content and some layout specificity / configurations. To go back to initial subject (sorry), I'd say that improving panels technology by adding the "size" parameter is very nice, the rest falls back more into "improving existing panels" (not just technology). Another example (that is listed in the proposal btw), if you implement this "AppBar" as a set of Panels containing App name + Large Icon, then if one day you improve Panels technology so you can display a horizontal panel bar and not just vertical, and you want to implement something very similar to the nice "dock" of MacOS, you would have to rewrite all apps panels or create new ones (containing large icon without app name), and rewrite your panel technology to be able to zoom a panel (and move the others further) when hovered - and eventually add a specific typing of Panels so you activate this behaviour only for those who represent apps panels. While if you implement the "AppBar" as a unique Panel there is no impact on panel technology by itself, to implement any variation of AppBar - and the only inputs you need are "the info from app descriptors" whatever it could be. > > Thanks, > Marius > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >> > Thanks, > >> > Marius > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks > >> > > -Vincent > >> > > > >> > >> The dev should just fill an > >> > >> application descriptor and then the App Bar manager (panel wizard > or > >> > >> whatever) should create a panel on the fly (if that is needed for > the > >> > >> underlying implementation) to display the icon/shortcut on the > >> > >> application bar. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Marius > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 2014-04-10 16:09 GMT+02:00 Marius Dumitru Florea < > >> > >> > [email protected]>: > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> To be clear, I'm not against reusing the left panels bar for the > >> app > >> > >> >> bar. What I don't like is asking application developers to > write a > >> > >> >> panel (boilerplate code) in order to have their application > listed > >> > >> >> somewhere. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> > >> >> Marius > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea > >> > >> >> wrote: > >> > >> >> > I don't like it very much. Instead of writing code like this: > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > #if ($panelWidth == "small") > >> > >> >> > ## Display stuff as icons > >> > >> >> > #else > >> > >> >> > ## Display stuff as a list > >> > >> >> > #end > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > in a panel, I would prefer to describe my application using an > >> XClass > >> > >> >> > (with properties for app name and icon). Then the system > (XWiki, > >> Panel > >> > >> >> > Wizard, whatever) should use these data (app name and icon) to > >> build > >> > >> >> > and UI that lets the user put shortcuts to his favourite app > to > >> a bar. > >> > >> >> > If you want, the system should create this "panel". Asking app > >> > >> >> > developers to write this boilerplate code to have their app > >> listed is > >> > >> >> > not nice. > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > Thanks, > >> > >> >> > Marius > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" > >> Delhumeau > >> > >> >> > wrote: > >> > >> >> >> Hi. > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> After some discussions with Caty and Vincent, we would like > to > >> propose > >> > >> >> you > >> > >> >> >> new ideas about the panels technology, that replaces our > >> previous > >> > >> >> >> propositions about the Flamingo Applications Bar. > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> The proposal is there, with more explanations and > screenshots: > >> > >> >> >> > >> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/PanelsImprovements > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> Here is my +1. > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> Louis-Marie > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
