I'm glad we are having discussion in this area. I've been thinking
about this a bit. I would absolutely love to have more uPortal adopters
weight in on the discussion. In the effort to promote brainstorming
some thoughts that have crossed my mind is:
- Respondr replacing universality
- Respondr's mobile view replacing mUniversality. The 'Respondr Mobile
Experience' would support portlets using AngularJS since a single
portlet displays at a time.
- Respondr having two approaches (configurable based on how you set it
up): The desktop-oriented view showing many portlets and a
single-portlet view. The latter greatly simplifies using AngularJS and
Bootstrap within the portlets and it just working as Andrew P has
pointed out.
I think a key for increasing Respondr adoption is the Respondr mobile
view. I will be suggesting that as an area of emphasis for the next
quarter. We've seen reasonable adoption of Respondr with new clients
(none are using 4.0.x). The question is adoption by existing 4.0.x
institutions of 4.1. We don't have much insight yet from the user
community yet :-( .
Of course this brainstorming (wouldn't call it a proposal yet) is not
yet supported by sufficient community discussion, but it could address
how we can move uPortal forward to the 'next level' and minimze
maintenance. I suspect the single-portlet view would have good traction
and I'd love to see how Bucky works out from a user satisfaction.
An interesting question is how we can support the two Respondr
approaches (shared desktop vs. single-portlet view) within the
portlets. I wouldn't want to have two view strategies within the
portlet. I'm unsure if we could have multiple AngularJS-based portlets
share a desktop view (something I would like to get a better
understanding of). I think cracking this nut would help us chart a
direction forward.
James Wennmacher - Unicon
480.558.2420
On 11/12/2014 04:40 PM, Andrew Petro wrote:
Oh dear.
Of course, all my references to Bucky were a slip and should have been
references to Respondr.
Bucky is MyUW's fork of Respondr. It isn't so very different. It felt cleaner
to fork and hack. Bucky differs from Respondr in having fewer and different
regions and in relying upon an external AngularJS front end to render the home
page.
Andrew
________________________________________
From: [email protected]
<[email protected]> on behalf of Anthony Colebourne
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [uportal-dev] How do we feel about ending support for
Universality/mUniversality?
Andrew,
It would be great to know more about Bucky :-)
What about Respondr? Do you think this will be around long enough to
attract many adopters?
I think Universality is dead, but I agree that mUniversality might still
have a future. WebViews in native mobile apps still need a theme to
render in, especially if the default theme's detached mode renders a
sticky header nav bar.
-- Anthony.
On 12/11/14 20:56, Andrew Petro wrote:
Drew,
I agree that I **feel** Universality and mUniversality should be
deprecated and then removed.
I’d feel more confident in that with more discussion in this thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.jasig.uportal/17788
that is, I’d love to know adopters had successfully migrated forward to
achieve their theme desires via Bucky and that therefore the product was
dropping Universality and mUniversality because in practice adopters
were no longer using those. As opposed to the product dropping them
without having demonstrated that adopters successfully migrate forward
to Bucky. Less about developer feelings and more about the product
responding to adopter adoption.
So. I think we need a few more rounds of making noise about, hey, what
needs to be better about Bucky and what needs to be better about this
upgrade path, o Universality and mUniversality adopters, such that your
migration forward to Bucky is obvious, before removing these. Visibly
deprecating them might be a great step in that making-noise process.
Bear in mind that while I'm looking forward to an exciting responsive
MyUW feature, the current production default is Universality /
mUniversality, and will remain so for the near future. That while James
and others have shared promising ideas about how to make Bucky a more
suitable upgrade path from mUniversality (render less on landing on
mobile), those ideas are not yet implemented. Such that an adopter
today could reasonably say that mUniversality is still their best foot
forward for some mobile use cases. Once that sounds less reasonable,
it's going to be more clearly sound to drop mUniversality.
Kind regards,
Andrew
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Drew Wills <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Should these themes be removed in 4.2 (or 4.3, 5.0, etc.), or should
we retain support for them indefinitely?
I’m inclined to believe we should remove them at some point, I’m
just not sure of the right moment. It’s a bandwidth drag to
maintain them, and they’re enough long-in-the-tooth that I don’t see
anyone innovating on them.
Thoughts?
drew
--
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
