On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Anca, > On 14 Nov 2015 at 10:57:24, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > [email protected]) wrote: > > Hi Anca, > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Anca Luca <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > my 2 cents on the "Data" or "Entries" subspace. > > ( But too late, since I see the issue was already closed :( ) > Thanks for taking the time to participate. > > > I'm afraid that, even if technically it seems like a nice idea, it's not > > that nice for a "regular non-developer user" which perceive an > application > > as only having data. > > > > > They don't need to and won't know that the code of > > that application is also stored on the wiki, in another subspace that is > > called "Code". > > > The Code space is still hidden so a regular user doesn't see it. There's no > change in this regard. > > > > There is complaint about the size and the amount of bloat in > > the XWiki URLS (the /xwiki/bin/view/ part) and this would be an extra > one, > > for the case of applications. I don't think url rewrite should be > > considered so easily as an option because it's technically not so easy to > > achieve and I think that there can be an issue with colision (e.g. > between > > MyApp/WebPreferences and MyApp/Data/WebPreferences). > > > > So you think having MyApp and MyAppCode is better? > You need to read the whole discussion thread and see that we’ve discussed > about what you said already and we’ve weighted pros and cons to decide in > the end that all things considered the Code and Data subspaces were > probably the best solution. > If you think they are not, please make a proposal that you think would be > better (ideally taking into account the arguments that we’ve already > discussed) and we can discuss updating what’s been already done. > Actually, I read the discussion and I re-read it now. And, depending on how the "delete application data" is implemented (IIRC In the UI now) we could more go for detailed delete options (by default and in the app withim minutes itself). All the arguments that were brought in the discussion are correct, I just think that in some of them the 80-20 rule was wrongly estimated: * deleting a whole application data is frequent, but not _that_ frequent (20%). * it was said that a url rewrite should be doable (people really bothered by the Data particle should be able to do it). No, it's not that easy (less than 20% of the people bothered by the Data particle can do it). * less than 20% of usecases have an application within minutes that has two data spaces. Actually, I am wondering how is that an app within minutes still, because out of my knowledge this is not a known feature of app within minutes, and it means that some customization has been done to that application. For me, if an application was customized, it's still an application but not "within minutes" anymore. * if we're talking about applications in general, I think just as frequent is the case when the same application has multiple data spaces (e.g. having multiple blogs, each in a different space, in a different point in the hierarchy). Having multiple subspaces in the application space would not help much in this case. * for the rights issue, in 80% of the cases the code authors are data authors as well, there are just additional rights on the code (sub) space, so it's normal that code space inherits from app space. * deleting a space without some of its subspaces is a larger problem than app within minutes, so a more generic solution for that could be interesting. Also, I think it would be a frequent problem (80%), so having a flexible solution for it can be interesting. Actually, the only thing on which I have a doubt that it would affect 80% of the usecases is the Data particle itself in the url :) (maybe more like 50-50 :D) . However, from the discussions in the thread I kind of had the feeling that it being annoying is considered to fall in the 20% bucket, compared to the other arguments which would be 80. I have the opposite feeling, as I explained above in the bullet list. It's a good thing that it's configurable, though. In what concerns the more generic topic of best practices: In the cases of larger customizations that I met so far (on non-nested spaces, though), the isolation was much more important: all the code for all the applications and all the customizations is in one space, in order to be able to manage it together as a group (rights, UI settings, deployment, search, etc), while the data was spread around in spaces that are dedicated exclusively to data, potentially more data spaces for all the different areas of applications coded by that code. Note that this would not fit in the case of a standard app within minutes anyway. I haven't thought yet about how this strategy would adapt for nested spaces, if each code space should be nested under its application space or still keep it all isolated... Thanks, Anca > > > But I guess this is really too late now... > It’ s not too late. This was done recently and we can still tune things if > there’s a better proposal. > > The location where the application stores its data is configurable. > What we need (and the topic of this thread) is a best practice, ie. what’s > used by default. We want apps by default to use these best practices, even > if they’re configurable (that should be the exception). So it would be nice > to have Anca and all the devs on this list to agree to use the best > practices :) > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > Thanks, > Marius > > > > > > Thanks, > > Anca > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > Why not using "Entries" instead of "Data" for the name? It will be > shown > > > both in the URL and in the breadcrumb, and fit with most of the > > use-cases. > > > > > > Users can still change the title of the "Entries" space to have a more > > > specific name such as "Ideas", "Meetings", etc... > > > > > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > > > 2015-10-26 10:45 GMT+01:00 Marius Dumitru Florea < > > > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" > > Delhumeau < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2015-09-30 10:58 GMT+02:00 [email protected] < > [email protected] > > >: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On 30 Sep 2015 at 10:53:48, Thomas Mortagne ( > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>> (mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> I think what I like best is some option in the refactoring API > > to > > > > > >>>> indicate that you want to delete only final documents in the > > space > > > > (so > > > > > >>>> skipping space home page and spaces). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> That could be interesting for some use cases but it’s risky for > > > this > > > > > one. > > > > > >>> Several apps may generate terminal pages and users could create > > > > > terminal > > > > > >>> pages in app spaces too. So that would not just remove the app > > > > > technical > > > > > >>> pages, it could remove more. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The idea of Thomas is an option to only delete *terminal* pages > > > > located > > > > > in > > > > > >> the space with a depth of 1. Said differently, the direct and > > > terminal > > > > > >> children of the page. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> This way, you can delete all data located in the space without > > > > removing > > > > > the > > > > > >> code (because the code would be located in a deeper depth), but > it > > > > works > > > > > >> only if the app generates data as terminal pages. It is the case > > > right > > > > > now, > > > > > >> but new apps should work differently and create their data as > > > regular > > > > > >> Nested Pages. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree at all on this later statement. New apps _may_ work > > > > > > differently and create nested pages, but it _should_ not. > > > > > > Anyway, this is why I am wondering about properly separating > > WebHome, > > > > > Code > > > > > > and Data. > > > > > > I do not think we need stable names, but the structure matter. If > > > Data > > > > > does > > > > > > not look nice, you may leave apps decide for themselves, the > rules > > > > being > > > > > > put your data in subspaces, and code in the Code subspace, or > > > something > > > > > > like that. Please note that using "space" in the previous rules > > looks > > > > bad > > > > > > to me, since we do not have space anymore ;) > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just another random thought: some applications might really want to > > > have > > > > > two "data" spaces; > > > > > for example currently in the blog you cannot have a category and a > > blog > > > > > post with the same name. > > > > > If both end up in their respective "subfolders" "Blog.Posts" and > > > > > "Blog.Categories", the problem goes away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, but I don't think it contradicts the rule. IMO the best > > practice > > > > should be to group the application data in one or more subspaces > under > > > the > > > > application space. If the application generates only one type of data > > > (e.g. > > > > Events) then it makes sense to have only one Data subspace. If the > > > > application generates two or more types of data (Categories and > Posts) > > > then > > > > it may need more subspaces. The only question is whether we should > > group > > > > these subspaces under a Data subspace, e.g. > > > > > > > > App / Data / Categories > > > > > > > > or leave them directly under the application space: > > > > > > > > App / Categories > > > > > > > > I prefer the second option. > > > > > > > > Another thing to decide is whether the Data space should be named > > "Data" > > > or > > > > some domain-specific name. Considering that we can set the title of > the > > > > home page to anything we want, I prefer to use "Data" as name, so > that > > > the > > > > code deals with a generic "Data" space, even though the user sees > > > "Events" > > > > in the breadcrumbs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if the application pages end up directly inside > the > > > > main > > > > > page, then e.g. you cannot have a category "Code" in the Blog. > > > > > (You cannot have a blog post with it either, but that might be a > > > smaller > > > > > nuisance) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point, and another reason to group the application data in > nested > > > > spaces under the application space. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marius > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
