Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Hello, Sorry for the sunrise modifications, I wasn't aware about the basic theme... Then I broke it a little... I think that it could be a good thing to push the bootstrap effort in the trunk. As far as the old themes are working, it's not a problem to have it in the trunk :) Moving sunrise specific source code is not a problem. Then basic theme will works again. Julien. Le 24/06/2015 16:12, Gavin Mabie a écrit : Hi Pierre No offense taken. I would like to hear from Julien on this issue so we can move it forward. Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Gavin, Please don't see my posting as an attack on anyone participating in the branch. It is just a reflection of my observation infused with a viewpoint. I appreciate what has been done. And, how to do skin variants has popped up before in relation to ecommerce. See various mail threads in devML. So, the effort applied and the result achieved validate the added goal of the Bootstrap PoC. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Pierre Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind of Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use the Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was required to have). When I initially included the Bootstrap Tomahawk theme, the purpose was solely to indicate how easy it would be to develop skins for a theme. Naturally some might think that it is a beautification, but that is a matter of opinion. In the real world you may find clients who do not agree with this notion. It's for this reason that most designers first present a vanilla look-and-feel so that clients can bring their preferences into the mix. As a community our goal should be to present Ofbiz as visually appealing as possible without being too prescriptive in terms of look-and-feel. Most projects do this by using generic (if not bland) look-and-feel's for their apps. Hence Basic. BTW Bootstrap is not a web framework! With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial goal. Going beyond the initial goal is perhaps at the crux of it. I personally think it is too early to do this. There are other, higher priority issues that need addressing before we get sexy on this. For one, we haven't dealt with responsiveness sufficiently. While we have demonstrated that the Ofbiz framework is flexible enough to handle Bootstrap and perhaps any other JavaScript framework, we have yet to address HTML 5 issues. Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes in the ftl files for the one on the other. I don't agree with the idea that these are difficulties. It is a simple solution to the problem arising from treating Sunrise as a theme. Also, it acknowledges the work done by Julien in line with the People before Code mantra. That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467, and provided patches for the two disentangled themes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362 This, I believe, is a complication. There is nothing complicated about the recommendation to fork header.ftl and appbar.ftl. In fact I would like to see this kind of practice promoted in Ofbiz as it allows designers more options. Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind of Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use the Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was required to have). With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial goal. Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes in the ftl files for the one on the other. That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467 , and provided patches for the two disentangled themes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362 Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Le 24/06/2015 11:47, Gavin Mabie a écrit : Four issues: 1. The Bootstrap Basic and Bootstrap Sunrise is in fact just one theme with Basic as theme and Sunrise as a skin (implementation of Basic). Hence the location of the css for Sunrise under bootstrap/css/skins. Other than that, Sunrise uses the same template libraries as Basic. It is a false choice. 2. If we want to elevate Sunrise to theme status (i.e not just a skin), then we have to create separate template libraries for it. To qualify as a theme, it should have its own distinct widget implementation including headers, menus, forms, tables, pagination etc. 3. The commits by Julien - r1683430 (header.ftl appbar.ftl) affects both Basic and Sunrise. I have not seen patches for these and could therefore not do reviews. 4. The approach with the Basic theme is to keep it as basic as possible, minimizing personal preferences with regards to look-and-feel and leaving this level of styling up to individual designers. I have committed patches to deal with most if not all the issues flagged by Adrian on 19 May 2015. New issues have cropped up as a result of r1683430. To get this merge-ready my recommendation is that we revert r1683430 which deals with header.ftl appbar.ft. These are minor issues which relate mainly to personal preferences. If the changes introduced with r1683430 is absolutely necessary, then I recommend that separate header.ftl appbar.ftl files are created and that themeResources in Sunrise point to locations where the new files reside. I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? Jacques Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: I am running the Bootstrap Basic (somewhat modified) against trunk. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I evaluated the bootstrap branch as it currently exists. If there are patches waiting to be applied to the branch, then I am not aware of them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 12:43 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Adrian, Thanks for the feedback. That the existing patch files available in JIRA issues don't work in trunk has to do with the fact that the bootstrap dev branch is not in sync with trunk. We have to take in consideration that the framework stack of the bootstrap branch is based (for the greater part) on r1634810. On top of that, the Bootstrap Basic and the other one were co-developed. And shortly before the disentanglement of the two themes changes in the templates were implemented for the other theme that affected the Bootstrap Basic theme negatively. Nonetheless, I am ok with whatever which way the community chooses to go with these bootstrap themes and the ones in trunk. It remains a personal preference what one likes best. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local copy yesterday and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still exist, plus I found another one. I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can be fixed after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too many. Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in the trunk. The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention as the other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest we port over one of the themes instead of two. Also, it would be nice to drop one or two existing themes. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 2:08 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi all, Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with respect to widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from framework ( OFBIZ-6362 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362) and in the Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840). Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the Bootstrap Basic and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready. What do you think? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Four issues: 1. The Bootstrap Basic and Bootstrap Sunrise is in fact just one theme with Basic as theme and Sunrise as a skin (implementation of Basic). Hence the location of the css for Sunrise under bootstrap/css/skins. Other than that, Sunrise uses the same template libraries as Basic. It is a false choice. 2. If we want to elevate Sunrise to theme status (i.e not just a skin), then we have to create separate template libraries for it. To qualify as a theme, it should have its own distinct widget implementation including headers, menus, forms, tables, pagination etc. 3. The commits by Julien - r1683430 (header.ftl appbar.ftl) affects both Basic and Sunrise. I have not seen patches for these and could therefore not do reviews. 4. The approach with the Basic theme is to keep it as basic as possible, minimizing personal preferences with regards to look-and-feel and leaving this level of styling up to individual designers. I have committed patches to deal with most if not all the issues flagged by Adrian on 19 May 2015. New issues have cropped up as a result of r1683430. To get this merge-ready my recommendation is that we revert r1683430 which deals with header.ftl appbar.ft. These are minor issues which relate mainly to personal preferences. If the changes introduced with r1683430 is absolutely necessary, then I recommend that separate header.ftl appbar.ftl files are created and that themeResources in Sunrise point to locations where the new files reside. Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: I am running the Bootstrap Basic (somewhat modified) against trunk. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I evaluated the bootstrap branch as it currently exists. If there are patches waiting to be applied to the branch, then I am not aware of them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 12:43 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Adrian, Thanks for the feedback. That the existing patch files available in JIRA issues don't work in trunk has to do with the fact that the bootstrap dev branch is not in sync with trunk. We have to take in consideration that the framework stack of the bootstrap branch is based (for the greater part) on r1634810. On top of that, the Bootstrap Basic and the other one were co-developed. And shortly before the disentanglement of the two themes changes in the templates were implemented for the other theme that affected the Bootstrap Basic theme negatively. Nonetheless, I am ok with whatever which way the community chooses to go with these bootstrap themes and the ones in trunk. It remains a personal preference what one likes best. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local copy yesterday and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still exist, plus I found another one. I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can be fixed after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too many. Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in the trunk. The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention as the other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest we port over one of the themes instead of two. Also, it would be nice to drop one or two existing themes. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 2:08 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi all, Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with respect to widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from framework ( OFBIZ-6362 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362) and in the Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840). Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the Bootstrap Basic and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready. What do you think? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? That's right. If Julien is okay with it, I can move his commits to new folder sunrise under bootstrap/includes. The sunrise folder can serve as placeholder for templates that deviate from the basic templates. I agree with Pierre that we should try to get this into the trunk sooner rather then later because of the massive refactoring work. New issues will definitely emerge once in the trunk, but we can deal with that there. Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Le 24/06/2015 11:47, Gavin Mabie a écrit : Four issues: 1. The Bootstrap Basic and Bootstrap Sunrise is in fact just one theme with Basic as theme and Sunrise as a skin (implementation of Basic). Hence the location of the css for Sunrise under bootstrap/css/skins. Other than that, Sunrise uses the same template libraries as Basic. It is a false choice. 2. If we want to elevate Sunrise to theme status (i.e not just a skin), then we have to create separate template libraries for it. To qualify as a theme, it should have its own distinct widget implementation including headers, menus, forms, tables, pagination etc. 3. The commits by Julien - r1683430 (header.ftl appbar.ftl) affects both Basic and Sunrise. I have not seen patches for these and could therefore not do reviews. 4. The approach with the Basic theme is to keep it as basic as possible, minimizing personal preferences with regards to look-and-feel and leaving this level of styling up to individual designers. I have committed patches to deal with most if not all the issues flagged by Adrian on 19 May 2015. New issues have cropped up as a result of r1683430. To get this merge-ready my recommendation is that we revert r1683430 which deals with header.ftl appbar.ft. These are minor issues which relate mainly to personal preferences. If the changes introduced with r1683430 is absolutely necessary, then I recommend that separate header.ftl appbar.ftl files are created and that themeResources in Sunrise point to locations where the new files reside. I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? Jacques Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: I am running the Bootstrap Basic (somewhat modified) against trunk. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I evaluated the bootstrap branch as it currently exists. If there are patches waiting to be applied to the branch, then I am not aware of them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 12:43 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Adrian, Thanks for the feedback. That the existing patch files available in JIRA issues don't work in trunk has to do with the fact that the bootstrap dev branch is not in sync with trunk. We have to take in consideration that the framework stack of the bootstrap branch is based (for the greater part) on r1634810. On top of that, the Bootstrap Basic and the other one were co-developed. And shortly before the disentanglement of the two themes changes in the templates were implemented for the other theme that affected the Bootstrap Basic theme negatively. Nonetheless, I am ok with whatever which way the community chooses to go with these bootstrap themes and the ones in trunk. It remains a personal preference what one likes best. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local copy yesterday and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still exist, plus I found another one. I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can be fixed after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too many. Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in the trunk. The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention as the other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest we port over one of the themes
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind of Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use the Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was required to have). With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial goal. Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes in the ftl files for the one on the other. That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467, and provided patches for the two disentangled themes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362 Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? That's right. If Julien is okay with it, I can move his commits to new folder sunrise under bootstrap/includes. The sunrise folder can serve as placeholder for templates that deviate from the basic templates. I agree with Pierre that we should try to get this into the trunk sooner rather then later because of the massive refactoring work. New issues will definitely emerge once in the trunk, but we can deal with that there. Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Le 24/06/2015 11:47, Gavin Mabie a écrit : Four issues: 1. The Bootstrap Basic and Bootstrap Sunrise is in fact just one theme with Basic as theme and Sunrise as a skin (implementation of Basic). Hence the location of the css for Sunrise under bootstrap/css/skins. Other than that, Sunrise uses the same template libraries as Basic. It is a false choice. 2. If we want to elevate Sunrise to theme status (i.e not just a skin), then we have to create separate template libraries for it. To qualify as a theme, it should have its own distinct widget implementation including headers, menus, forms, tables, pagination etc. 3. The commits by Julien - r1683430 (header.ftl appbar.ftl) affects both Basic and Sunrise. I have not seen patches for these and could therefore not do reviews. 4. The approach with the Basic theme is to keep it as basic as possible, minimizing personal preferences with regards to look-and-feel and leaving this level of styling up to individual designers. I have committed patches to deal with most if not all the issues flagged by Adrian on 19 May 2015. New issues have cropped up as a result of r1683430. To get this merge-ready my recommendation is that we revert r1683430 which deals with header.ftl appbar.ft. These are minor issues which relate mainly to personal preferences. If the changes introduced with r1683430 is absolutely necessary, then I recommend that separate header.ftl appbar.ftl files are created and that themeResources in Sunrise point to locations where the new files reside. I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? Jacques Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: I am running the Bootstrap Basic (somewhat modified) against trunk. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I evaluated the bootstrap branch as it currently exists. If there are patches waiting to be applied to the branch, then I am not aware of them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 12:43 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Adrian, Thanks for the feedback. That the existing patch files available in JIRA issues don't work in trunk has to do with the fact that the bootstrap dev branch is not in sync with trunk. We have to take in consideration that the framework stack of the bootstrap branch is based (for the greater part) on r1634810. On top of that, the Bootstrap Basic and the other one were co-developed. And shortly before the disentanglement of the two themes changes in the templates were
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
If we, as a community, are opting for multiple themes in one component, that would sure fit the bill. But is that what we want? Add complexities and bulk to a somewhat global theme management component? Or should we just have a strategy of one theme - one component? I am in favour of the latter option, even if it means some kind of duplication of functionality. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? That's right. If Julien is okay with it, I can move his commits to new folder sunrise under bootstrap/includes. The sunrise folder can serve as placeholder for templates that deviate from the basic templates. I agree with Pierre that we should try to get this into the trunk sooner rather then later because of the massive refactoring work. New issues will definitely emerge once in the trunk, but we can deal with that there. Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Le 24/06/2015 11:47, Gavin Mabie a écrit : Four issues: 1. The Bootstrap Basic and Bootstrap Sunrise is in fact just one theme with Basic as theme and Sunrise as a skin (implementation of Basic). Hence the location of the css for Sunrise under bootstrap/css/skins. Other than that, Sunrise uses the same template libraries as Basic. It is a false choice. 2. If we want to elevate Sunrise to theme status (i.e not just a skin), then we have to create separate template libraries for it. To qualify as a theme, it should have its own distinct widget implementation including headers, menus, forms, tables, pagination etc. 3. The commits by Julien - r1683430 (header.ftl appbar.ftl) affects both Basic and Sunrise. I have not seen patches for these and could therefore not do reviews. 4. The approach with the Basic theme is to keep it as basic as possible, minimizing personal preferences with regards to look-and-feel and leaving this level of styling up to individual designers. I have committed patches to deal with most if not all the issues flagged by Adrian on 19 May 2015. New issues have cropped up as a result of r1683430. To get this merge-ready my recommendation is that we revert r1683430 which deals with header.ftl appbar.ft. These are minor issues which relate mainly to personal preferences. If the changes introduced with r1683430 is absolutely necessary, then I recommend that separate header.ftl appbar.ftl files are created and that themeResources in Sunrise point to locations where the new files reside. I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? Jacques Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: I am running the Bootstrap Basic (somewhat modified) against trunk. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I evaluated the bootstrap branch as it currently exists. If there are patches waiting to be applied to the branch, then I am not aware of them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 12:43 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Adrian, Thanks for the feedback. That the existing patch files available in JIRA issues don't work in trunk has to do with the fact that the bootstrap dev branch is not in sync with trunk. We have to take in consideration that the framework stack of the bootstrap branch is based (for the greater part) on r1634810. On top of that, the Bootstrap Basic and the other one were co-developed. And shortly before the disentanglement of the two themes changes in the templates were implemented for the other theme that affected the Bootstrap Basic theme negatively. Nonetheless, I am ok with whatever which way the community chooses to go with these bootstrap themes and the ones in trunk. It remains a personal preference what one likes best. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
If we, as a community, are opting for multiple themes in one component, that would sure fit the bill. But is that what we want? Add complexities and bulk to a somewhat global theme management component? Or should we just have a strategy of one theme - one component? I am in favour of the latter option, even if it means some kind of duplication of functionality. I am for one basic theme. Most projects maintain one basic theme and leave further customization and development up to the design community. I see our task as developing and maintaining a solid basic theme. Maybe that can spawn a templating community of its own. Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: If we, as a community, are opting for multiple themes in one component, that would sure fit the bill. But is that what we want? Add complexities and bulk to a somewhat global theme management component? Or should we just have a strategy of one theme - one component? I am in favour of the latter option, even if it means some kind of duplication of functionality. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? That's right. If Julien is okay with it, I can move his commits to new folder sunrise under bootstrap/includes. The sunrise folder can serve as placeholder for templates that deviate from the basic templates. I agree with Pierre that we should try to get this into the trunk sooner rather then later because of the massive refactoring work. New issues will definitely emerge once in the trunk, but we can deal with that there. Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Le 24/06/2015 11:47, Gavin Mabie a écrit : Four issues: 1. The Bootstrap Basic and Bootstrap Sunrise is in fact just one theme with Basic as theme and Sunrise as a skin (implementation of Basic). Hence the location of the css for Sunrise under bootstrap/css/skins. Other than that, Sunrise uses the same template libraries as Basic. It is a false choice. 2. If we want to elevate Sunrise to theme status (i.e not just a skin), then we have to create separate template libraries for it. To qualify as a theme, it should have its own distinct widget implementation including headers, menus, forms, tables, pagination etc. 3. The commits by Julien - r1683430 (header.ftl appbar.ftl) affects both Basic and Sunrise. I have not seen patches for these and could therefore not do reviews. 4. The approach with the Basic theme is to keep it as basic as possible, minimizing personal preferences with regards to look-and-feel and leaving this level of styling up to individual designers. I have committed patches to deal with most if not all the issues flagged by Adrian on 19 May 2015. New issues have cropped up as a result of r1683430. To get this merge-ready my recommendation is that we revert r1683430 which deals with header.ftl appbar.ft. These are minor issues which relate mainly to personal preferences. If the changes introduced with r1683430 is absolutely necessary, then I recommend that separate header.ftl appbar.ftl files are created and that themeResources in Sunrise point to locations where the new files reside. I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? Jacques Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: I am running the Bootstrap Basic (somewhat modified) against trunk. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I evaluated the bootstrap branch as it currently exists. If there are patches waiting to be applied to the branch, then I am not aware of them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 12:43 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Adrian, Thanks for
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Hi Pierre Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind of Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use the Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was required to have). When I initially included the Bootstrap Tomahawk theme, the purpose was solely to indicate how easy it would be to develop skins for a theme. Naturally some might think that it is a beautification, but that is a matter of opinion. In the real world you may find clients who do not agree with this notion. It's for this reason that most designers first present a vanilla look-and-feel so that clients can bring their preferences into the mix. As a community our goal should be to present Ofbiz as visually appealing as possible without being too prescriptive in terms of look-and-feel. Most projects do this by using generic (if not bland) look-and-feel's for their apps. Hence Basic. BTW Bootstrap is not a web framework! With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial goal. Going beyond the initial goal is perhaps at the crux of it. I personally think it is too early to do this. There are other, higher priority issues that need addressing before we get sexy on this. For one, we haven't dealt with responsiveness sufficiently. While we have demonstrated that the Ofbiz framework is flexible enough to handle Bootstrap and perhaps any other JavaScript framework, we have yet to address HTML 5 issues. Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes in the ftl files for the one on the other. I don't agree with the idea that these are difficulties. It is a simple solution to the problem arising from treating Sunrise as a theme. Also, it acknowledges the work done by Julien in line with the People before Code mantra. That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467, and provided patches for the two disentangled themes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362 This, I believe, is a complication. There is nothing complicated about the recommendation to fork header.ftl and appbar.ftl. In fact I would like to see this kind of practice promoted in Ofbiz as it allows designers more options. Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind of Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use the Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was required to have). With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial goal. Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes in the ftl files for the one on the other. That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467, and provided patches for the two disentangled themes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362 Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? That's right. If Julien is okay with it, I can move his commits to new folder sunrise under bootstrap/includes. The sunrise folder can serve as placeholder for templates that deviate from the basic templates. I agree with Pierre that we should try to get this into the trunk sooner rather then later because of the massive refactoring work. New issues will definitely emerge once in the trunk, but we can deal with that there. Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Le 24/06/2015 11:47, Gavin Mabie a écrit : Four issues: 1. The Bootstrap Basic and Bootstrap Sunrise is in fact just one theme with Basic as theme and Sunrise as a skin (implementation of Basic). Hence the location of the css for Sunrise under bootstrap/css/skins. Other than that, Sunrise uses the same template libraries as Basic. It is a false choice. 2. If we want to elevate Sunrise to theme status (i.e not just a skin), then we have to create separate template libraries for it. To qualify as a theme, it should have its own distinct widget implementation including headers,
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Gavin, Please don't see my posting as an attack on anyone participating in the branch. It is just a reflection of my observation infused with a viewpoint. I appreciate what has been done. And, how to do skin variants has popped up before in relation to ecommerce. See various mail threads in devML. So, the effort applied and the result achieved validate the added goal of the Bootstrap PoC. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Pierre Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind of Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use the Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was required to have). When I initially included the Bootstrap Tomahawk theme, the purpose was solely to indicate how easy it would be to develop skins for a theme. Naturally some might think that it is a beautification, but that is a matter of opinion. In the real world you may find clients who do not agree with this notion. It's for this reason that most designers first present a vanilla look-and-feel so that clients can bring their preferences into the mix. As a community our goal should be to present Ofbiz as visually appealing as possible without being too prescriptive in terms of look-and-feel. Most projects do this by using generic (if not bland) look-and-feel's for their apps. Hence Basic. BTW Bootstrap is not a web framework! With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial goal. Going beyond the initial goal is perhaps at the crux of it. I personally think it is too early to do this. There are other, higher priority issues that need addressing before we get sexy on this. For one, we haven't dealt with responsiveness sufficiently. While we have demonstrated that the Ofbiz framework is flexible enough to handle Bootstrap and perhaps any other JavaScript framework, we have yet to address HTML 5 issues. Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes in the ftl files for the one on the other. I don't agree with the idea that these are difficulties. It is a simple solution to the problem arising from treating Sunrise as a theme. Also, it acknowledges the work done by Julien in line with the People before Code mantra. That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467, and provided patches for the two disentangled themes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362 This, I believe, is a complication. There is nothing complicated about the recommendation to fork header.ftl and appbar.ftl. In fact I would like to see this kind of practice promoted in Ofbiz as it allows designers more options. Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind of Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use the Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was required to have). With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial goal. Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes in the ftl files for the one on the other. That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467, and provided patches for the two disentangled themes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362 Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? That's right. If Julien is okay with it, I can move his commits to new folder sunrise under bootstrap/includes. The sunrise folder can serve as placeholder for templates that deviate from the basic templates. I agree with Pierre that we should try to get this into the trunk sooner rather then later because of the massive refactoring work. New issues will definitely emerge once in the trunk, but we can deal with that there. Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM,
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Hi Pierre No offense taken. I would like to hear from Julien on this issue so we can move it forward. Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Gavin, Please don't see my posting as an attack on anyone participating in the branch. It is just a reflection of my observation infused with a viewpoint. I appreciate what has been done. And, how to do skin variants has popped up before in relation to ecommerce. See various mail threads in devML. So, the effort applied and the result achieved validate the added goal of the Bootstrap PoC. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Pierre Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind of Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use the Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was required to have). When I initially included the Bootstrap Tomahawk theme, the purpose was solely to indicate how easy it would be to develop skins for a theme. Naturally some might think that it is a beautification, but that is a matter of opinion. In the real world you may find clients who do not agree with this notion. It's for this reason that most designers first present a vanilla look-and-feel so that clients can bring their preferences into the mix. As a community our goal should be to present Ofbiz as visually appealing as possible without being too prescriptive in terms of look-and-feel. Most projects do this by using generic (if not bland) look-and-feel's for their apps. Hence Basic. BTW Bootstrap is not a web framework! With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial goal. Going beyond the initial goal is perhaps at the crux of it. I personally think it is too early to do this. There are other, higher priority issues that need addressing before we get sexy on this. For one, we haven't dealt with responsiveness sufficiently. While we have demonstrated that the Ofbiz framework is flexible enough to handle Bootstrap and perhaps any other JavaScript framework, we have yet to address HTML 5 issues. Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes in the ftl files for the one on the other. I don't agree with the idea that these are difficulties. It is a simple solution to the problem arising from treating Sunrise as a theme. Also, it acknowledges the work done by Julien in line with the People before Code mantra. That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467, and provided patches for the two disentangled themes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362 This, I believe, is a complication. There is nothing complicated about the recommendation to fork header.ftl and appbar.ftl. In fact I would like to see this kind of practice promoted in Ofbiz as it allows designers more options. Regards Gavin On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Bootstrap Sunrise is, in effect, a beautification effort on top of Bootstrap Basic. Where the Bootstrap dev branch started out as a kind of Proof of Concept branch (proving that OFBiz could be leveraged to use the Bootstrap web framework, and investigating/implementing what was required to have). With the effort spent on the additional skin (started as bootstrapped Tomahawk variant, now dubbed Sunrise), we went beyond that initial goal. Yet introducing another set of difficulties, being the effect of changes in the ftl files for the one on the other. That is why I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6467 , and provided patches for the two disentangled themes in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362 Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gavin Mabie kwikst...@gmail.com wrote: I did not review anything but from your explanation having separated/specific header.ftl appbar.ftl files in Sunrise makes sense to me (since it's a skin) BTW I understand that Sunrise is a skin because it's mostly a copy of basic, right? That's right. If Julien is okay with it, I can move his commits to new folder sunrise under bootstrap/includes. The sunrise folder can serve as placeholder for
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local copy yesterday and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still exist, plus I found another one. I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can be fixed after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too many. Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in the trunk. The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention as the other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest we port over one of the themes instead of two. Also, it would be nice to drop one or two existing themes. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 2:08 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi all, Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with respect to widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from framework ( OFBIZ-6362 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362) and in the Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840). Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the Bootstrap Basic and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready. What do you think? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Hello, I was underwater since 1 month and can't work seriously on bootstrap theme. But I agree with Adrian, bootstrap basic can be removed and we can keep focused on Bootstrap Sunrise. I think that it's still not ready for trunk. For the old themes, when Sunrise work, I'm quite sure that I'll never use old ones anymore... It could be interesting to have theme as addons... Julien. Le 23/06/2015 17:20, Adrian Crum a écrit : I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local copy yesterday and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still exist, plus I found another one. I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can be fixed after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too many. Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in the trunk. The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention as the other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest we port over one of the themes instead of two. Also, it would be nice to drop one or two existing themes. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 2:08 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi all, Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with respect to widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from framework ( OFBIZ-6362 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362) and in the Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840). Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the Bootstrap Basic and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready. What do you think? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Le 23/06/2015 17:42, Julien NICOLAS a écrit : Hello, I was underwater since 1 month and can't work seriously on bootstrap theme. But I agree with Adrian, bootstrap basic can be removed and we can keep focused on Bootstrap Sunrise. I think that it's still not ready for trunk. For the old themes, when Sunrise work, I'm quite sure that I'll never use old ones anymore... It could be interesting to have theme as addons... I'd like to keep at least Flat Grey and Tomahawk for now Jacques Julien. Le 23/06/2015 17:20, Adrian Crum a écrit : I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local copy yesterday and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still exist, plus I found another one. I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can be fixed after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too many. Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in the trunk. The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention as the other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest we port over one of the themes instead of two. Also, it would be nice to drop one or two existing themes. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 2:08 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi all, Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with respect to widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from framework ( OFBIZ-6362 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362) and in the Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840). Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the Bootstrap Basic and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready. What do you think? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Hi Adrian, Thanks for the feedback. That the existing patch files available in JIRA issues don't work in trunk has to do with the fact that the bootstrap dev branch is not in sync with trunk. We have to take in consideration that the framework stack of the bootstrap branch is based (for the greater part) on r1634810. On top of that, the Bootstrap Basic and the other one were co-developed. And shortly before the disentanglement of the two themes changes in the templates were implemented for the other theme that affected the Bootstrap Basic theme negatively. Nonetheless, I am ok with whatever which way the community chooses to go with these bootstrap themes and the ones in trunk. It remains a personal preference what one likes best. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local copy yesterday and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still exist, plus I found another one. I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can be fixed after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too many. Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in the trunk. The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention as the other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest we port over one of the themes instead of two. Also, it would be nice to drop one or two existing themes. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 2:08 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi all, Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with respect to widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from framework ( OFBIZ-6362 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362) and in the Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840). Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the Bootstrap Basic and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready. What do you think? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
I evaluated the bootstrap branch as it currently exists. If there are patches waiting to be applied to the branch, then I am not aware of them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 12:43 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Adrian, Thanks for the feedback. That the existing patch files available in JIRA issues don't work in trunk has to do with the fact that the bootstrap dev branch is not in sync with trunk. We have to take in consideration that the framework stack of the bootstrap branch is based (for the greater part) on r1634810. On top of that, the Bootstrap Basic and the other one were co-developed. And shortly before the disentanglement of the two themes changes in the templates were implemented for the other theme that affected the Bootstrap Basic theme negatively. Nonetheless, I am ok with whatever which way the community chooses to go with these bootstrap themes and the ones in trunk. It remains a personal preference what one likes best. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local copy yesterday and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still exist, plus I found another one. I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can be fixed after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too many. Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in the trunk. The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention as the other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest we port over one of the themes instead of two. Also, it would be nice to drop one or two existing themes. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 2:08 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi all, Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with respect to widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from framework ( OFBIZ-6362 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362) and in the Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840). Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the Bootstrap Basic and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready. What do you think? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
[DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
Hi all, Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with respect to widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from framework ( OFBIZ-6362 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362) and in the Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840). Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the Bootstrap Basic and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready. What do you think? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] Bootstrap Themes - is it trunk ready?
I am running the Bootstrap Basic (somewhat modified) against trunk. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I evaluated the bootstrap branch as it currently exists. If there are patches waiting to be applied to the branch, then I am not aware of them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 12:43 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Adrian, Thanks for the feedback. That the existing patch files available in JIRA issues don't work in trunk has to do with the fact that the bootstrap dev branch is not in sync with trunk. We have to take in consideration that the framework stack of the bootstrap branch is based (for the greater part) on r1634810. On top of that, the Bootstrap Basic and the other one were co-developed. And shortly before the disentanglement of the two themes changes in the templates were implemented for the other theme that affected the Bootstrap Basic theme negatively. Nonetheless, I am ok with whatever which way the community chooses to go with these bootstrap themes and the ones in trunk. It remains a personal preference what one likes best. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I don't think the new themes are ready. I updated my local copy yesterday and tried them out - many of the layout issues I reported still exist, plus I found another one. I don't mind if there are just a few minor quirks - those can be fixed after the themes are in the trunk, but right now there are too many. Also, we need to discuss how many themes we want to include in the trunk. The Bootstrap Basic theme doesn't seem to get as much attention as the other one, and it shows - its layout is much worse. I suggest we port over one of the themes instead of two. Also, it would be nice to drop one or two existing themes. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/23/2015 2:08 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi all, Recently we have seen that great strides have been made with respect to widget refactoring, theme functions disentanglement from framework ( OFBIZ-6362 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6362) and in the Bootstrap dev branch (OFBIZ-5840 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840). Based on this all I am inclined to believe that both the Bootstrap Basic and the Bootstrap Sunrise themes are trunk ready. What do you think? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
