Hi David, This is a very interesting, getting back to the first principles. The idea of a separate "tab through the fields type of thing" View Model to 'give birth' to an object does make good sense to me, it fills that purpose and that purpose only. The whole issue of 'edit mode' on a domain object and what that should mean disappears as, as you suggest, the default view of a domain object (in its nakedness) is largely behavioural.
Thanks On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:02 AM, David Tildesley < davo...@yahoo.co.nz.invalid> wrote: > Hi, > Just to add an architectural perspective - I think you are all right and > all wrong at the same time ;). > Dan is absolutely right if he constrains his comments to Domain Objects > (which I believe is the case). > I think the framework should enforce the Naked Object principles > (which are in turn are an expression of sound architecture and OO > principles and patterns) . And that means no CRUD exposed in the UI > directly from Domain Objects and for Domain Objects to be action/behaviour > oriented. > However in reference to the UI layer - then consider it disposable, > evolving and changing with new views as need for specific use cases. That > is precisely what the View Model is for in ISIS I believe. > The domain layer (domain objects), provided the domain model was well > designed in the first place, is mostly stable and easily extended over the > lifecycle of the application. > We can't stop developers from bleeding concerns across layers but we can > do more re-inforce the domain object/model and the rich domain pattern > which is a reflection of the principle of separation of concerns and > layering style. > What it does mean though, is that for many use cases, it is less likely > that you will expose the domain objects directly and more likely you will > use View Model (I hesitate to use the term View Object for obvious reasons) > and View Model will call behaviour on the domain objects as needed. > Which hopefully means that generated wicket UI/viewer behaviour from View > Model source will move to provide what some folk are asking for - a rapid > data input (tab through the fields type of thing). But not from domain > objects. > OK so it means that you need to deliberately layer your application by > separating View and Domain concerns ... but that is a good thing in the > long run of the life of your app is it not? > ISIS doesn't make the NO paradigm mandatory - that was caused by the > introduction of the view model - I think that is a good thing - provided > that you understand that the view model is UI layer only and you shouldn't > bleed domain behaviour into it. > Regards,David. > > > > On Thursday, 26 May 2016 5:15 AM, Dan Haywood < > d...@haywood-associates.co.uk> wrote: > > > Good input, thanks. > > My experience both with Estatio (4 years) but also with the big Naked > Objects system in Ireland (12 years) is that actions only is good enough in > the vast majority of cases ; and where bulk input is genuinely needed, then > we can usually address it with a little lateral thinking. > > For Estatio, there's an occasional requirement to bulk upload new tax > rates, and for that we use the isis-module-excel that allows the users to > just upload an excel spreadsheet and process that. Works quite well. > > The risk of allowing general free - form editing in ERP systems is that > users are liable to abuse the freedom... we saw this for example in the > packaged software that Estatio replaced... spare /unused fields end up > being co-opted to store all sorts of adhoc info. Instead, we should be > exploiting the fact that Isis allows such rapid development by keeping > things tight: relying on actions only means that the conversation as to > *why* the data needs to change can be had, resulting in a richer ubiquitous > language/insights/domain model. > > All that said, we'll continue to evolve and improve the default UI, and to > make it easier to allow it to be extended for use cases such as this. One > option is different UIs, or to use custom UIs based on the Restful viewer, > but they are completely different experiences from an end-user > perspective. Another more seamless/smoother integration might be to > leverage the nowicket framework which allows custom Wicket forms to be > developed quite easily; we've been in touch with its developer, and have > started spiking some things. > > Hope that helps explain some of the rationale a little better. > > Thanks, > Dan > > http://invesdwin.de/nowicket/introduction > > Hello. I have to agree with Steve and Hector. In my experience creating > and implementing ERP and large Merchandise Management systems, the > ability to change all fields within a TAB combined with in-line row > entry and editing is a must in a system where you handle a large volume > of transactional data entry (we have been extensively using those > features for the last 25 years or so in our systems, and the users > strongly request them). As an example use case, a user must enter > sometimes tens or even hundreds of rows (a purchase order line item > detail, a price change batch line item, journal entries and so on). Just > try doing that using the mouse and going back and forth on each row. > Luckily in our current applications we are building with Apache ISIS, we > are managing most of the data entry on the mobile devices, which handle > this in-line editing and all form editing easily, leveraging the amazing > ISIS capability to create web services from actions. But we do not see > us using the current Isis forms for that a system where there is volume > data entry in the browser. Having the ISIS ability to associate actions > to enter a group of fields / properties together and trigger some action > is beautiful, but I do not think it should replace all form editing nor > in-line row entry and editing, but they can both work as a complement. > > I've heard from Dan that ISIS will have additional viewer options in the > future as a result of its open hexagonal architecture and some join > efforts with the NakedObjects guys, which sounds great!. I hope they > might bring us some UI friendly features like those. I recognize there > have been some recent significant improvements to the UI configuration, > and hope there will be in-line row entry and editing and back to all > form / all TAB editing soon. > > Cesar. > > On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 05:14 +0000, Dan Haywood wrote: > > Well, editing is enabled by default, so CRUD is supported. We certainly > > don't want to make the framework deliberately difficult to use. > > > > I think the best thing for me to say is that editing properties is a > > work-in-progress, and where we're aiming to get to is a JIRA-like > > look-n-feel. If it works well enough for that app, then I think it > should > > suffice for Isis too. > > > > Thx > > Dan > > > > > > > > On 25 May 2016 at 03:36, Stephen Cameron <steve.cameron...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I know this has been discussed previously, but it seems such a central > > > thing that I have to add my two-bits worth again. > > > > > > Re: "it positions the framework away from the common perception of it > being > > > a CRUD framework;" > > > > > > Any database application is at its core a CRUD application, unless its > view > > > only. So the key thing, surely, is to show people how much more Isis > can do > > > and how easily. It seems you want to be deliberately unfamiliar to > users in > > > order to show that its different to those other 'CRUD in five minutes' > > > frameworks. > > > > > > Making a group of properties read-only and providing an action to > update > > > all the properties together is a useful pattern, but you seem to be > > > suggesting that this is the right way to do it everywhere because > Estatio > > > is done that way. > > > > > > I think the in-situ editing will be good as a default behaviour. > > > > > > On the upside, I think Isis is now a very sweet framework to use in > many, > > > many aspects. There is still alot for me to learn, but I am keen to do > > > that, and try to convince others of its merits too. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Dan Haywood < > d...@haywood-associates.co.uk > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Hector, > > > > welcome to the users@ mailing list. > > > > > > > > I'm afraid that there isn't a setting to go back to the previous > > > behaviour, > > > > but there are some good reasons - some practical, some more > > > philosophical - > > > > why this change has been made. > > > > > > > > The practical reason is that with tabs, it's not particularly clear > what > > > a > > > > global edit should be... should it be for all properties, including > those > > > > not visible on other tabs? or should it somehow disable being able > to > > > > switch tabs when in edit mode? or perhaps there should be not a > global > > > edit > > > > but instead an edit per fieldset/member group? It wasn't at all > clear > > > > which was preferable. > > > > > > > > Second, we've had a ticket knocking around for a while to move > editing > > > > towards that in JIRA, where one clicks in the field and then can do > an > > > > in-situ edit. The current implementation isn't quite a slick as > that, > > > but > > > > the number of clicks is actually the same. > > > > > > > > The philosophical reason is that, actually, it positions the > framework > > > away > > > > from the common perception of it being a CRUD framework; instead it > is > > > also > > > > for (even mostly for) complex domains where the is significant > business > > > > logic to transition from one state of the system to another. When > Jeroen > > > > was implementing Estatio [1] he deliberately made all fields > read-only > > > (in > > > > stark contrast to the packaged application it replaced), not because > > > there > > > > wasn't a requirement to allow the data to be changed, but instead he > > > wanted > > > > the business users to come back to him and explain WHY the data > should be > > > > changed. (For example, changing the end of a tenancy date has impact > > > > elsewhere). So it helped us get a deeper insight into the domain, > and we > > > > encoded that insight into actions. > > > > > > > > For the big Naked Objects system in Ireland, we also only have > actions, > > > no > > > > edits... eg award a pension claim or disallow a jobseekers allowance > > > > claim. Even for small stuff, eg a customer wants to change their > phone > > > > number, then this is an action because we then want to retain the old > > > > address on file in a list of previous phone numbers. Again, the > action > > > > helps capture the intent. > > > > > > > > ~~~ > > > > If you want to allow an object's properties to be changed in bulk, > then I > > > > recommend that you add an action that accepts all the fields, and > > > position > > > > that action on a top-level panel. We do this for the contactapp [2]. > > > For > > > > your remaining more complex objects, I suggest that you sprinkle in > some > > > > tabs, by way of recompense. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope that helps > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > [1] http://github.com/estatio/estatio > > > > [2] http://github.com/incodehq/contactapp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 May 2016 at 21:13, Hector Fabio Meza < > hector.m...@smartools.com.co > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > My company has been working on an Isis application in the last few > > > > > months, and after the changes to the edit functionality on 1.12.0, > our > > > > > test users are asking if it's possible to put the whole form in > edit > > > > > mode instead of doing it field by field. > > > > > > > > > > Is there a way to tell the wicket viewer to use the previous > behavior, > > > > > i.e. an edit button that affects the whole form? > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > Hector Fabio Meza Martínez > > > > > R&D Leader > > > > > www.smartools.com.co [1] > > > > > > > > > > Links: > > > > > ------ > > > > > [1] http://www.smartools.com.co/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
