That's a good idea. Even simpler. Thanks! James Wennmacher - Unicon 480.558.2420
On 07/25/2014 12:36 PM, Eric Dalquist wrote: > I'd go even further and start at 100 instead of 10 to give you more > space since most layouts only have 3 levels > > * 1 > o 100 > + 110 > + 120 > o 200 > + 210 > + 220 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:00 AM, James Wennmacher > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Inspired by > https://github.com/Jasig/uPortal/pull/392/files#r15399346, I'll > state that I've found it annoying that we tend to have sequential > #s in the IDs in the layout-fragment.xml files. I propose we > adopt a numbering convention that spaces the IDs out so changes to > a file generally don't incorporate a lot of unneeded noise of > renumbering IDs throughout the rest of the xml file. > > My proposal is: > > - root folder has an ID of 1 > - folders under root are spaced 30 apart, first one starting with > ID=10 to allow for 2 or 3 columns > - column folders are spaced 10 apart starting with the next > sequential # > - portlets just take the next available sequence number under > their corresponding folder > > so something like (contents abbreviated to show concept) > > <layout> > <folder ID="s1"> > <folder ID="s10" type="page-top"> > <channel fname="dynamic-respondr-skin" ID="n11"/> > <channel fname="fragment-admin-exit" ID="n12"/> > </folder> > <folder ID="s40" type="customize"> > <channel fname="personalization-gallery"ID="n41"/> > </folder> > <folder ID="s70" name="Welcome" type="regular" > > <folder ID="s71" name="Column" type="regular"> > <channel fname="email-preview-demo" ID="n72"> > <channel fname="weather" ID="n73"/> > <channel fname="pbookmarks" ID="n74"/> > </folder> > <folder ID="s80" name="Column" type="regular"> > <channel fname="calendar" ID="n81"/> > </folder> > <folder ID="s90" name="Column" type="regular"> > <channel fname="other-calendar" ID="n91"/> > </folder> > </folder> > </folder> > </layout> > > This would reduce time when making manual layout changes, and > reduce the noise in some of the commits. We could forgo > sequential numbering altogether, but I think something like this > would strike a reasonable balance to make it easier to avoid > duplicating ID #s, and it would reduce the confusion of new > adopters that wouldn't immediately realize that the s#s and the > n#s have to be unique within the file. This might reduce a few > stubbed toes. > > Thoughts? > > -- > James Wennmacher - Unicon > 480.558.2420 <tel:480.558.2420> > > > -- > You are currently subscribed to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> as: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev > > > -- > > You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: > [email protected] > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev -- You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
