Hi,

I am in favour of this proposal since I expressed few months ago the need
of a link in the EM UI to easily access the extension's homepage.

Thanks,
Alex

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 15 Oct 2016, at 13:30, Eduard Moraru <enygma2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> On 14 Oct 2016, at 19:03, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> This does not make any sense at general Extension level.
> > >>>
> > >>> Could be custom metadata that apply to XAR extensions. Since that
> only
> > >>> make sense for XAR extensions I would prefer to have this be
> > >>> implemented as a xobject as usual.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, it could be implemented as a UIXP/XObject of the Extension UI.
> > >>
> > >>> For me this is already the job of the uix we use for application
> panel
> > >>> so I don't really see the point of adding something else.
> > >>
> > >> It’s not enough at all. That was my main point and explanation.
> > Apparently
> > >> I failed to explain the problem correctly.
> > >>
> > >> I’ll give more details:
> > >> * You install a XAR extension that provides a ConfigurableClass (but
> you
> > >> don’t know that as a user)
> > >>
> > >
> > > I would say that an application would need both and Entry Point (i.e.
> > > homepage)
> >
> > I’d say this is optional. It would a pain to always mandate this. For
> > example the LDAP Application only provides an Admin UI (it only helps to
> > configure LDAP).
> >
> > So for me the entry point is another concept: it’s a link to a place
> where
> > the user should go to use the app. It can be pointing either to the app’s
> > home page if there’s one, or the app’s Admin UI page.
> >
> > The goal of this thread is not to talk about home pages or Admin sections
> > of extensions. It’s about discoverability and making it easy for users to
> > start using any extension that is installed through the EM UI.
> >
>
> AFAIU, we both agree on this :)
>
> What I wanted to point out was that an application/extension could also
> provide its "settings", just like you have for Firefox addons, for example.
> You should go to a list of installed extensions/apps (TBD) and see both a
> way to access that extension/app, but also the way to configure it. IMO, we
> should not reuse the entry point for configuration stuff (when there is no
> UI, like the LDAP example). However, other apps/extensions could have both.
>
> IMO, it would be make more sense to talk about extensions here (i.e. at an
> EM level), and not particularly about applications (i.e. along the lines of
> Vincent's original suggestion). AFAIR, we now have extension categories.
> Why bother with app panel UIXs or Application Descriptors, when EM already
> provides all we need? We have the list of pages from EM and a way to
> identify extensions that are of type "application". We now add the entry
> point and the settings and we`re all good to go. It is up to the extension
> to juggle the category, entry point and/or settings, if any of this applies
> to it.
>
> Also, this would fit both EM's UI for an extension's details view, but also
> the Application Index's listing of installed applications (which would just
> be a listing only extensions of category "application", and maybe AWM apps
> which are not extensions yet).
>
> No need to complicate things.
>
> -Eduard
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > > but also an optional Configuration section (i.e. administration
> > > section defined by either a ConfigurableClass entry or even something
> > > custom).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Eduard
> > >
> > >
> > >> * After you’ve installed that extension, as a user, you don’t know
> what
> > to
> > >> do. You need to go read the doc for the app to understand where you
> > need to
> > >> go to start using it.
> > >>
> > >> So I’m really convinced we need something better than what we have
> now.
> > >>
> > >> Now after we move the Applications UIXP to the
> > xwiki-platform-applications
> > >> module, we could add an “entrypoint’ property in the UIXP but that
> would
> > >> mean that the Extension Manager UI module would depend on
> > >> xwiki-platform-applications. We would need to decide if it’s ok. I
> > think it
> > >> is since it can be considered as an application descriptor and I don’t
> > see
> > >> a problem of having the EM UI module know about application
> descriptors.
> > >>
> > >> WDYT?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Vincent
> > >>
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> Hi devs,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Problem
> > >>>> =======
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We have 2 issues right now when installing an extension in XWiki:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1) It’s not clear where is the entry point of that extension.
> > >>>> - Example1: an app that is only for admins and only has a
> > >> ConfigurableClass
> > >>>> - Example2: an app that provides a macro and doesn’t have a UI
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2) Even when an extension registers itself in the Applications
> Panel,
> > >> the user still need to refresh the page or navigate away to see it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Proposal
> > >>>> ========
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * Introduce the concept of Entry point (a.k.a home page) in
> Extension
> > >> metadata
> > >>>> * Have the EM UI display the extension’s entry point (when there’s
> > one)
> > >> after having installed the extension so that the user can click on it
> > and
> > >> be taken to the home page of the extension.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This would make extensions more discoverable IMO.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Implementation Details
> > >>>> ==================
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * Some maven extension metadata properties in pom.xml
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * A format to represent an entry point. It shouldn’t be a full URL
> > >> since that needs to be computed at runtime. Basically it should
> contain:
> > >>>> ** The document reference
> > >>>> ** The action to use (view, admin, etc) - optional, should default
> to
> > >> “view"
> > >>>> ** The query string to use - optional, should default to an empty
> > query
> > >> string
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This corresponds to the notion of ResourceReference
> > >> (EntityResourceReference to be precise). However we don’t have any
> > textual
> > >> representation of it ATM.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> WDYT? Good idea? Bad idea?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks
> > >>>> -Vincent
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > devs@xwiki.org
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs@xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs@xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Reply via email to