| Previous · Next | |
| User | Message |
|
arjan
|
Date: 4/12/2008 8:35 am · Subject: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
Dear all, P.S. I send this earlier not via the site but via email and it seems not to be received. (02:29 Amsterdam time) Kind regards, Arjan Widlak United Knowledge |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
colink
|
Date: 4/12/2008 12:39 pm · Subject: Re: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
I'm still reading and digesting this. It's the most complete list of dev requirements that I've seen to date, so thank you for your hard, exhaustive work. All of us devs, and future devs, will benefit from this. Point #5 I think is a little too broad in its wording. Not all www_ functions are templatable. Take www_edit, for example. I think it's safe to say that all "user" www_ functions should be templatable, where "user" means not a content manager or admin. Point #7.1 is a goal. WebGUI itself does not completely pass the Gentle level of PerlCritic, last time I checked it in January. |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
arjan
|
Date: 4/15/2008 3:59 pm · Subject: Re: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
Yes, clear.
Yes, but I would guess that since this a goal, for new code this a requirement. Kind regards, Arjan Widlak United Knowledge |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
JT
|
Date: 4/12/2008 2:34 pm · Subject: Re: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
In general yes I'd say that this is the complete list as it stands now. Of course like any living document it's open both to interpretation and amendment. Ultimately the final word on what does or doesn't get into WebGUI resides with me. And here are the more subjective things that I weigh in that consideration:
|
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
koen
|
Date: 4/12/2008 4:26 pm · Subject: Re: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
Is there a monetary incentive to include it in the core, for Plain Black or any WebGUI integrator (United Knowledge being one of those integrators)? I'm not sure what you mean here. Do I get it if I rephrase it this way? Does Plain Black or United Knowledge or any other company that earns it's money by supporting WebGUI get better financially by adding this feature to the core? Koen de Jonge - ProcoliX |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
JT
|
Date: 4/12/2008 5:25 pm · Subject: Re: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
That's roughly it. But more specifically not money for implementing it, but rather increased sales for having it be a standard feature. You can call it a competitive advantage. JT On Apr 12, 2008, at 4:26 PM, <koen@procolix.com> wrote: koen wrote:
|
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
koen
|
Date: 4/12/2008 4:34 pm · Subject: Re: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
What is the maintenance cost of this feature? This is important because once it's in the core it's primarily Plain Black's responsibility to support, document, and fix bugs for it. It would be nice to think that other people in the community would step up to do it, but with a few exceptions, this hasn't been the case historically. This is interesting. I think the stance on this could do with a little extra attention, since changing the tides on this point would make a lot more possible. JT, do you see a way to get a breaktrhough on this issue. Could for example ProcoliX be made responsible for a part of the core to support, document, and fix bugs for it? How would such a part be defined? Is it actually possible to give this kind of responsibility out of the hands of Plain Black? Could you give an example of an exception from the history and elaborate on what went well and what went not so well? Koen de Jonge - ProcoliX |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
JT
|
Date: 4/13/2008 11:33 am · Subject: Re: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
JT, do you see a way to get a breaktrhough on this issue. Could for example ProcoliX be made responsible for a part of the core to support, document, and fix bugs for it? How could that be possible? You're going to man our support boards and phone lines to answer questions about a single feature in WebGUI? Certainly fixing bugs could be assigned to you, and maybe the documentation as far as it goes in the Wiki, but not for our books, and not for our support center.
I have a pie in the sky idea for Lift (the upgrade system we talked about) where we'll set up a repository so that WebGUI developers other than Plain Black can publish their WebGUI plugins (assets, macros, whatever) and then site owners, through a GUI interface can install/upgrade those plugins remotely. I think that's a much better long term approach than keeping everything in the core. That way you truly do own, document, support, and bug fix your own features. Could you give an example of an exception from the history and elaborate on what went well and what went not so well? I don't want to stir up any bad blood on features that have not gone so well, so I'll talk about one of the exceptions that has worked well. Much of the stuff Martin Kamerbeek has written for WebGUI, whether for his work at ProcoliX and Oqapi or on his own, he's been very good about helping out with both in bug fixing and answering people's questions on the forums and IRC. Many others though have contributed chunks of code and then we never hear from them again. It's nice to get the code, but it's even nicer to get help from those people after the code is in. That's part of the reason why I'm being so strict these days about code quality, POD, tests and whatnot. If PB is going to have to support it, then we want it well documented and tested to make it easier to support. |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
koen
|
Date: 4/13/2008 5:24 pm · Subject: Re: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
JT, do you see a way to get a breaktrhough on this issue. Could for example ProcoliX be made responsible for a part of the core to support, document, and fix bugs for it? I was wondering if you would see a way in which it could be achieved. I think I have to agree that it would be at least nearly impossible. I agree that you probably wouldn't want other people than Plain Black staff to man your support boards and phone lines, other then by contracting them. You would have to have some form of control over them if only it where for quality assurance. The best way I can see is that more parts will be pluggable and the core would be as lean as possible. See my other replies to this same post for clarity reasons. Koen de Jonge - ProcoliX |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
koen
|
Date: 4/13/2008 5:30 pm · Subject: Re: The policy for contributions to the WebGUI core · Rating: -1
How would such a part be defined? I have a pie in the sky idea for Lift (the upgrade system we talked about) where we'll set up a repository so that WebGUI developers other than Plain Black can publish their WebGUI plugins (assets, macros, whatever) and then site owners, through a GUI interface can install/upgrade those plugins remotely. I think that's a much better long term approach than keeping everything in the core. That way you truly do own, document, support, and bug fix your own features. I like this idea very much. Could this be noted as a long term objective? I also agree absolutely that making WebGUI even more pluggable then it already is is the best approach for the long term. How can we (the not Plain Black companies) help in the best possible way to achieve this goal? Koen de Jonge - ProcoliX |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|