Ferenc,
I agree that the field name won't matter to the user. But I'm big on best
practices and like to make naming conventions be as sensible and
self-explanatory as possible. ;) So it will matter to those maintaining and
contributing to the solution. As one who has followed "cowboy coders" too many
times I will not inflict lazy design on anyone else (not saying anyone is).
I agree with your approach below. In my next update I'll have an example on
how device selection should work (although you might already have a good idea;
just making sure).
I have not seen updates from the MeeGo website team but again I believe
designing and developing publicly should be the practice regardless of whoever
winds up implementing a solution... so I will keep on! Could be useful for
jobs I'm looking at (as work examples) also. ;)
Randy
(apologies for top-posting-- new Ovi client makes contextual replies difficult)
________________________________
From: Ferenc Szekely <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2011 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [MeeGo-community] MeeGo Community device program update
On 04/07/2011 07:15 PM, Randall Arnold wrote:
> Thanks Ferenc!
>
> Please check out the updated wiki page if you have not in the past few
> days. The platforms (i.e. "Device Type") are all listed now. It may
> make sense to actually use "Platform" instead of "Device Type" as the
> field name. I have a minor update to the spec coming.
>
Thanks for the info, Randy.
The name of the field does not matter much as long as we all know what
is stored there.
What matters is the label we use in the UI and the corresponding
instruction that we show for the provider when creating a "new device".
Both are very easy to change in the "language" file of the web
application, which is prepared to be multilingual. Will be looking for
translators once the demo is up and running, but that's an other topic..
By the way these platform types will be configurable, so administrators
can change them, or add new ones etc. Providers then will have to select
one of these types when opening a device program.
> Randy
>
Cheers,
ferenc
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Ferenc Szekely <[email protected]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 7, 2011 6:11 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [MeeGo-community] MeeGo Community device program update
>
> Hello,
>
> On 04/05/2011 09:04 PM, Randall Arnold wrote:
>> - several of us have been shaping up a database model and application
>> framework for an online device request system. I'm still not clear on
>> who will be implementing this, but I believe the proposal that Ferenc
>> and I have put together is a good one. More on this as details solidify.
>>
> I am working on this right now:
> https://github.com/nemein/com_meego_devprogram/issues#issue/11
>
> I hope to finish this today. Once it is done we could have the promised
> demo site.
>
> Niels, could you please take care of the necessary configuration on the
> load balancer side, as well as this request:
> https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=14951
>
> Thanks,
> ferenc
> _______________________________________________
> MeeGo-community mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community
> http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
>
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community
http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community
http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
