Just to clarify, I was thinking of using |starter|.

Please let me know if you think |basic| might work better

Cheers

On 2013-06-05, at 4:28 PM, "Zenevich, Yura" <[email protected]>
 wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> So based on the today's conversation we ended up narrowing down the possible 
> names for options in the "out of the box" category to: |starter| and |basic|.
> 
> I will update my pull request asap. Please, if you have any preferences or 
> concerns regarding the chosen names, reply to this thread.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Yura
> 
> On 2013-06-04, at 10:36 AM, Justin Obara <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> I've given this some more thought today, and have the following suggestions.
>> 
>> fluid.uiOptions.defaultSettingsPanels -> fluid.uiOptions.settingsPanels
>> fluid.uiEnhancer.defaultActions -> fluid.uiOptions.actions
>> 
>> These could be further subdivided as needed, (e.g. 
>> fluid.uiOptions.textSettingsPanels, fluid.uiEnhancer.textActions).
>> 
>> 
>> I haven't yet come up with any suggestions for renaming 
>> fluid.uiOptions.defaultModel and fluid.uiOptions.defaultModel.outOfTheBox, 
>> but do have some questions about them.
>> 
>> 1) Do we really need fluid.uiOptions.defaultModel as a grade? It appears to 
>> only set an empty defaultModel as a member. If one was to override this, as 
>> illustrated by fluid.uiOptions.defaultModel.outOfTheBox, you'd have to 
>> basically rewrite all of the configuration anyways. The only difference is 
>> the gradeName "fluid.uiOptions.defaultModel" vs "fluid.littleComponent". 
>> 
>> 2) Why don't we use "fluid.uiOptions.defaultModel.outOfTheBox" as a grade of 
>> what is currently called fluid.uiOptions.defaultSetttingsPanels and 
>> fluid.uiEnhancer.defaultActions, instead of including it along side those?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Justin
>> 
>> On 2013-06-03, at 2:01 PM, Justin Obara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Looking forward to chatting about this in the channel today, but I'll add 
>>> my current thoughts here just in case.
>>> 
>>> I think I'm in agreement with not using the word "default" for the 
>>> "outOThefBox" configuration. I was a bit leery about this as I helped 
>>> implement it, and should have put more thought into it at the time. As with 
>>> the rest of our naming, I think we need something descriptive about what 
>>> exactly it is that a user could expect from it. What makes this set 
>>> different from some set that other parties might create? For that matter 
>>> would we ever consider creating multiple sets ourselves? For example, one 
>>> that included only the legacy options and one that also included new 
>>> settings like "content simplification"?
>>> 
>>> I'm also not sold on fluid.uiOptions.defaultModel as a component/gradeName. 
>>> When first reading that I would assume that it is itself the default model, 
>>> but that is actually at fluid.uiOptions.defaultModel.defaultModel. 
>>> 
>>> The word "defaults" is already associated with a component's "default" 
>>> configuration as specified in a call to fluid.defaults. If we call too many 
>>> things "defaults" it will make things increasingly confused. I think we 
>>> should try to refrain from using this word where possible.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Justin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2013-06-03, at 2:49 AM, Antranig Basman <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 23/05/2013 13:17, Cheetham, Anastasia wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Antranig, this is an interesting topic. Naming can be a tricky thing; 
>>>>> thinking about the issues you raise
>>>>> has really got me pondering.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here are some stream-of-conciousness thoughts: Some opinions, some 
>>>>> musings, some questions…
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> First, Antranig, some of the points in your email brought to mind the 
>>>>> discussions started in the thread
>>>>> "Designing a new UIO API." In that thread, you pointed out that we don't 
>>>>> want to somehow elevate the
>>>>> out-of-the-box set of panels and settings to any privileged status. You 
>>>>> also said
>>>>> 
>>>>>> We anticipate that in real life, almost ALL practical uses of UIO will 
>>>>>> be in the scenarios labelled
>>>>>> under the headings "adding settings" and "removing settings".
>>>>> 
>>>>> These points make a lot of sense to me. Combine them with the information 
>>>>> in this email, and it seems
>>>>> that the natural, un-altered state of the components is: empty. I'm 
>>>>> inclined to refer to the "natural,
>>>>> un-altered state of the components" as the "default" state.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But if we use "default" in our naming of the empty components, how then 
>>>>> do we refer to the set of
>>>>> out-of-the-box panels and settings? "outOfTheBox"? "builtIn"? "starter"? 
>>>>> "basic"?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should we even be referring to them as a set at all? Correct me if I'm 
>>>>> wrong, but I imagine there will be
>>>>> use-cases where integrators might want to use *some* of the 
>>>>> out-of-the-box settings but not others.
>>>>> Perhaps there should be no single grade that adds all of them, but rather 
>>>>> separate grades for each?
>>>>> (Personally, I think we *should* have a single grade that adds all the 
>>>>> out-of-the-box settings in one go
>>>>> – and not require six separate grades – but I could probably be convinced 
>>>>> otherwise by good arguments.)
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for these remarks, Anastasia. In answer to the last questions - we 
>>>> don't have an alternative to have names for the separate grades as well as 
>>>> the since grade which combine them for user convenience. If the separate 
>>>> grades didn't have names, they couldn't exist :) "outOfTheBox" seems to be 
>>>> our current de facto alternative to "default", and I think words like 
>>>> "builtIn" are prejudicial by virtue of the previous argument suggesting 
>>>> "privilege for the 1st parties" - clearly these grades are NOT actually 
>>>> "built in" as we established.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not particularly excited about any of the words on offer, so calling 
>>>> on the community for some fresh brainstorming! Perhaps we can have a chat 
>>>> in IRC tomorrow -
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> A
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________________
>>>> fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
>>>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>>>> see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

Reply via email to