Yes, a solution that eliminates node identifiers in the import/export XML would 
be even better.  I considered being against this idea on the basis that that's 
what we should actually be working on.  Then I figured let's take a bit of 
progress where we can get it.  :)​


Andrew




________________________________
From: [email protected] 
<[email protected]> on behalf of Anthony Colebourne 
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 5:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [uportal-dev] Re: [uportal-dev] sequential IDs in layout-fragment.xml 
files contributing to commit noise

Hi,

I always thought the long term aim was to move away from serializing the xml 
across database rows?

This solution would probably work well for a long time, but if we don't like 
id's then shouldn't we try to eliminate them?

Anthony.

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: "Andrew Petro" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: [uportal-dev] sequential IDs in layout-fragment.xml files contributing 
to commit noise
Date: Fri, Jul 25, 2014 22:46

+1, especially as base-10-ized by Dalquist's suggestion.

I'd only expect to see this sort of change come into master towards 4.2 and not 
come into a patches branch.

I'd love to see the convention documented in a README.md co-located with the 
layout-fragment.xml files it describes, and I'd love to see an automated 
convention-adherence-check included in the product test suite and executed by 
travis-ci so as to avoid forgetting about the convention and regressing in the 
product.

PS: This reminds me of conventions about Applesoft Basic line numbers.



On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM, James Wennmacher 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
That's a good idea.  Even simpler.  Thanks!


James Wennmacher - Unicon
480.558.2420<tel: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
     *   100
        *   110
        *   120
     *   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]<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]<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

-- 
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

Reply via email to