[Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hello Everyone,
Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow through. So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is simply .. TOO BIG So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to work with. - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then buttons etc .. - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned libraries and widgets - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 [5] https://s.apache.org/836D [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
Administrator
|
HI Taher,
I agree about doing it directly in the trunk. Else we will get conflict issues, because it will be a long task. +1 for a POC Jacques Le 12/05/2018 à 20:02, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > Hello Everyone, > > Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the > user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but > looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many > discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] > [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow > through. > > So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I > have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is > simply .. TOO BIG > > So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial > research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to > be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I > am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: > > - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap > will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website > that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to > work with. > - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent > framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic > behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages > - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin > for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then > buttons etc .. > - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js > - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned > libraries and widgets > - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that > for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit > of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) > > We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that > gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in > trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks > oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. > > What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? > > [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 > [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr > [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO > [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 > [5] https://s.apache.org/836D > [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB > [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E > [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo > [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx > [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 > |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
Hi Taher,
I like your proposal, adding bootstrap as common theme looks good idea, Just as note: While transforming macros to bootstrap pattern we need to avoid use bootstrap classes like pullright, pullLeft, etc. instead we will write css rule based on element hierarchy. It will help designer to theme as per need. I am not familier with vue.js so I can;t say anything about vue.js, I'll explore it. +1 for POC, we can do POC on branch. Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit www.hotwax.co On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux < [hidden email]> wrote: > HI Taher, > > I agree about doing it directly in the trunk. Else we will get conflict > issues, because it will be a long task. > > +1 for a POC > > Jacques > > > > Le 12/05/2018 à 20:02, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but >> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >> through. >> >> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I >> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is >> simply .. TOO BIG >> >> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I >> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >> >> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >> work with. >> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent >> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic >> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin >> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >> buttons etc .. >> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js >> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned >> libraries and widgets >> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that >> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit >> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >> >> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in >> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks >> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >> >> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >> >> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >> >> > |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
In reply to this post by taher
I think no matter what we use someone will always want something different.
I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written over the years to support custom UIs. I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting our existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at new UI frameworks. Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload much more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely rewritten, although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only defines a basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using the likes of swagger and restful APIs? Regards Scott On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the > user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but > looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many > discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] > [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow > through. > > So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I > have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is > simply .. TOO BIG > > So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial > research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to > be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I > am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: > > - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap > will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website > that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to > work with. > - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent > framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic > behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages > - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin > for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then > buttons etc .. > - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js > - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned > libraries and widgets > - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that > for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit > of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) > > We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that > gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in > trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks > oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. > > What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? > > [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 > [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr > [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO > [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 > [5] https://s.apache.org/836D > [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB > [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E > [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo > [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx > [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 > |
|
|
Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ...
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote: > I think no matter what we use someone will always want something different. > I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written over > the years to support custom UIs. > > I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting our > existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at new UI > frameworks. Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? > > Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI > customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload much > more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely rewritten, > although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The reasons I suggested these libraries are: - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to keep jumping between many pages to get something done. > > Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only defines a > basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using the > likes of swagger and restful APIs? Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? > > Regards > Scott > > On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but >> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >> through. >> >> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I >> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is >> simply .. TOO BIG >> >> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I >> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >> >> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >> work with. >> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent >> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic >> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin >> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >> buttons etc .. >> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js >> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned >> libraries and widgets >> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that >> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit >> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >> >> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in >> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks >> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >> >> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >> >> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >> |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]>
wrote: > Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I think no matter what we use someone will always want something > different. > > I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written > over > > the years to support custom UIs. > > > > I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting our > > existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at new UI > > frameworks. > > Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why > rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? > What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? > No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services custom projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less time and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project without even touching the existing codebase. > > > > > Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI > > customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload > much > > more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely > rewritten, > > although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. > > The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The > reasons I suggested these libraries are: > - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a > powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, > tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. > - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context > model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and > Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to > keep jumping between many pages to get something done. > > > > > Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only defines > a > > basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using the > > likes of swagger and restful APIs? > > Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the > first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I > was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to > GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. > However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm > just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong > with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? > Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions and efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some thoughts on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. > > > > > Regards > > Scott > > > > On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hello Everyone, > >> > >> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the > >> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but > >> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many > >> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] > >> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow > >> through. > >> > >> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I > >> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is > >> simply .. TOO BIG > >> > >> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial > >> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to > >> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I > >> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: > >> > >> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap > >> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website > >> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to > >> work with. > >> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent > >> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic > >> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages > >> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin > >> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then > >> buttons etc .. > >> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js > >> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned > >> libraries and widgets > >> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that > >> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit > >> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) > >> > >> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that > >> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in > >> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks > >> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. > >> > >> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? > >> > >> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 > >> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr > >> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO > >> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 > >> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D > >> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB > >> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E > >> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo > >> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx > >> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 > >> > |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
In reply to this post by taher
Hi Taher,
+1 to the suggestion. Personally I think Bootstrap and Vue are quite easy. We started a new project (a procurement platform) from this April 9th, we happened to choose Bootstrap and Vue(Element) as frontend. My team had zero Vue knowledge, and decided to use it by their own, the reason they told me is that they tried to play it and found they love it. I suggested react and they didn't like it. We bought a bootstrap theme, now we have completed v0.1 development and in the middle of v0.2. It's going to production this month or next month. Here is our internal test environment, hope you like it (BTW it's restarted frequently): https://111.160.216.2:7235/ Username: TC_10110 or TC_10120 Password: 123456 Another story (bluffing part): my son is in his 3rd year in a university, he has just completed a 3-month practical training in Online Media Group of Tencent (Tencent is a local company in China) in his spare time, Tencent uses react, so he learned react from zero. At the end of the training, he contributed more than 1000 lines code to the news feed section of WeChat(a popular app in China) which is used by over 700 million android users in China every day. Kind Regards, Shi Jinghai -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Taher Alkhateeb [mailto:[hidden email]] 发送时间: 2018年5月13日 2:03 收件人: OFBIZ Development Mailing List 主题: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js Hello Everyone, Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow through. So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is simply .. TOO BIG So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to work with. - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then buttons etc .. - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned libraries and widgets - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 [5] https://s.apache.org/836D [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
In reply to this post by taher
Hi,
I have no objection to introduce bootstrap and Vue.js. I suggest to don't introduce them on common-theme but create a new theme with the orientation wanted. If you thinks that it's difficult to extend the common-theme with bootstrap, fork it completely this could be indicate what we need to have on common-theme and what we need to migrate on a potential legacy-theme. If you introduce a new base theme, you can commit it directly on trunk without impact and after you can extend it with different other theme. I don't know Vue.js but I think that we can use the screen engine to transmit information with json without change in code base. Currently I didn't plan time to work on it but I will try to help you if you move forward :) Nicolas On 12/05/2018 20:02, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the > user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but > looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many > discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] > [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow > through. > > So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I > have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is > simply .. TOO BIG > > So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial > research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to > be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I > am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: > > - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap > will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website > that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to > work with. > - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent > framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic > behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages > - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin > for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then > buttons etc .. > - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js > - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned > libraries and widgets > - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that > for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit > of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) > > We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that > gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in > trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks > oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. > > What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? > > [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 > [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr > [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO > [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 > [5] https://s.apache.org/836D > [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB > [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E > [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo > [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx > [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Scott Gray-3
Hi Scott,
Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services that can sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and weaving in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is inefficient in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in place? What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better understanding of your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural decision. On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > I think no matter what we use someone will always want something > > different. > > > I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written > > over > > > the years to support custom UIs. > > > > > > I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting > our > > > existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at new > UI > > > frameworks. > > > > Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why > > rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? > > What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? > > > > No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services custom > projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less time > and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project without > even touching the existing codebase. > > > > > > > > > > Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI > > > customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload > > much > > > more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely > > rewritten, > > > although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. > > > > The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The > > reasons I suggested these libraries are: > > - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a > > powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, > > tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. > > - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context > > model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and > > Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to > > keep jumping between many pages to get something done. > > > > > > > > Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only > defines > > a > > > basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using the > > > likes of swagger and restful APIs? > > > > Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the > > first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I > > was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to > > GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. > > However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm > > just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong > > with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? > > > > Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions and > efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some thoughts > on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > Scott > > > > > > On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < > [hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hello Everyone, > > >> > > >> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the > > >> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but > > >> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many > > >> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] > > >> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow > > >> through. > > >> > > >> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I > > >> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is > > >> simply .. TOO BIG > > >> > > >> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial > > >> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to > > >> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I > > >> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: > > >> > > >> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap > > >> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website > > >> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to > > >> work with. > > >> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent > > >> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic > > >> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages > > >> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin > > >> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then > > >> buttons etc .. > > >> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js > > >> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned > > >> libraries and widgets > > >> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that > > >> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit > > >> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) > > >> > > >> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that > > >> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in > > >> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks > > >> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. > > >> > > >> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? > > >> > > >> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 > > >> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr > > >> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO > > >> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 > > >> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D > > >> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB > > >> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E > > >> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo > > >> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx > > >> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 > > >> > > > |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
Hi Taher,
I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web APIs to access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of UI technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. No one would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because they could build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the server-side code. Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our services are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy modification of the server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders to ofbiz from another application, I can't really do anything without interacting with the OFBiz UI. The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve a completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor of the month UI framework to build it with. All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be nice if any UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used both by our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone else's framework of choice. Regards Scott On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully > understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services that can > sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and weaving > in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is inefficient > in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in place? > What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? > > I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better understanding of > your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural > decision. > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... > > > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > I think no matter what we use someone will always want something > > > different. > > > > I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written > > > over > > > > the years to support custom UIs. > > > > > > > > I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting > > our > > > > existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at > new > > UI > > > > frameworks. > > > > > > Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why > > > rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? > > > What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? > > > > > > > No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services > custom > > projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less > time > > and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project without > > even touching the existing codebase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI > > > > customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the > workload > > > much > > > > more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely > > > rewritten, > > > > although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. > > > > > > The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The > > > reasons I suggested these libraries are: > > > - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a > > > powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, > > > tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. > > > - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context > > > model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and > > > Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to > > > keep jumping between many pages to get something done. > > > > > > > > > > > Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only > > defines > > > a > > > > basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using > the > > > > likes of swagger and restful APIs? > > > > > > Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the > > > first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I > > > was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to > > > GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. > > > However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm > > > just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong > > > with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? > > > > > > > Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions and > > efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some thoughts > > on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < > > [hidden email]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hello Everyone, > > > >> > > > >> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the > > > >> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, > but > > > >> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many > > > >> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] > > > >> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow > > > >> through. > > > >> > > > >> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure > I > > > >> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem > is > > > >> simply .. TOO BIG > > > >> > > > >> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial > > > >> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to > > > >> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So > I > > > >> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: > > > >> > > > >> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap > > > >> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website > > > >> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to > > > >> work with. > > > >> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an > excellent > > > >> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give > dynamic > > > >> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages > > > >> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can > begin > > > >> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then > > > >> buttons etc .. > > > >> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in > Vue.js > > > >> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above > mentioned > > > >> libraries and widgets > > > >> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means > that > > > >> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little > bit > > > >> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) > > > >> > > > >> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that > > > >> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation > in > > > >> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface > looks > > > >> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. > > > >> > > > >> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 > > > >> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr > > > >> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO > > > >> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 > > > >> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D > > > >> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB > > > >> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E > > > >> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo > > > >> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx > > > >> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 > > > >> > > > > > > |
|
|
Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you!
So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good strategy. A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However, of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations or the need to integrate with other systems. So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget system itself (also a good idea!) Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the implementation of web services, but I think introducing these frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Taher, > > I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web APIs to > access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of UI > technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. No one > would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because they could > build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the > server-side code. > > Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, > inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our services > are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy modification of the > server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders to ofbiz > from another application, I can't really do anything without interacting > with the OFBiz UI. > > The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve a > completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor of the > month UI framework to build it with. > > All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be nice if any > UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used both by > our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone else's > framework of choice. > > Regards > Scott > > > On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Hi Scott, >> >> Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully >> understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services that can >> sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and weaving >> in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is inefficient >> in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in place? >> What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? >> >> I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better understanding of >> your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural >> decision. >> >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... >> > > >> > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray >> > > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > > > I think no matter what we use someone will always want something >> > > different. >> > > > I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written >> > > over >> > > > the years to support custom UIs. >> > > > >> > > > I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting >> > our >> > > > existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at >> new >> > UI >> > > > frameworks. >> > > >> > > Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why >> > > rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? >> > > What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? >> > > >> > >> > No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services >> custom >> > projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less >> time >> > and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project without >> > even touching the existing codebase. >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI >> > > > customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the >> workload >> > > much >> > > > more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely >> > > rewritten, >> > > > although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. >> > > >> > > The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The >> > > reasons I suggested these libraries are: >> > > - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a >> > > powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, >> > > tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. >> > > - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context >> > > model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and >> > > Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to >> > > keep jumping between many pages to get something done. >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only >> > defines >> > > a >> > > > basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using >> the >> > > > likes of swagger and restful APIs? >> > > >> > > Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the >> > > first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I >> > > was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to >> > > GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. >> > > However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm >> > > just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong >> > > with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? >> > > >> > >> > Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions and >> > efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some thoughts >> > on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Regards >> > > > Scott >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < >> > [hidden email]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Hello Everyone, >> > > >> >> > > >> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >> > > >> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, >> but >> > > >> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >> > > >> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >> > > >> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >> > > >> through. >> > > >> >> > > >> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure >> I >> > > >> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem >> is >> > > >> simply .. TOO BIG >> > > >> >> > > >> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >> > > >> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >> > > >> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So >> I >> > > >> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >> > > >> >> > > >> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >> > > >> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >> > > >> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >> > > >> work with. >> > > >> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an >> excellent >> > > >> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give >> dynamic >> > > >> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >> > > >> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can >> begin >> > > >> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >> > > >> buttons etc .. >> > > >> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in >> Vue.js >> > > >> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above >> mentioned >> > > >> libraries and widgets >> > > >> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means >> that >> > > >> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little >> bit >> > > >> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >> > > >> >> > > >> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >> > > >> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation >> in >> > > >> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface >> looks >> > > >> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >> > > >> >> > > >> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >> > > >> >> > > >> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >> > > >> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >> > > >> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >> > > >> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >> > > >> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >> > > >> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >> > > >> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >> > > >> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >> > > >> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >> > > >> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Malin-2
On 15/05/2018 12:43, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:
> Interesting idea Nicolas. So we will have sort of multiple layers of > themes? NewTheme -> BaseThemeWithLibraries -> CommonTheme? Exactly > That's actually not a bad idea, and would help with backwards > compatibility. The draw back is perhaps "too many themes" but I > suppose it won't bother people that much? This isn't a problem if we define a correct rule for naming, or find an other way to organize/identify a theme > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Nicolas Malin > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have no objection to introduce bootstrap and Vue.js. I suggest to don't >> introduce them on common-theme but create a new theme with the orientation >> wanted. >> >> If you thinks that it's difficult to extend the common-theme with bootstrap, >> fork it completely this could be indicate what we need to have on >> common-theme and what we need to migrate on a potential legacy-theme. >> >> If you introduce a new base theme, you can commit it directly on trunk >> without impact and after you can extend it with different other theme. >> >> I don't know Vue.js but I think that we can use the screen engine to >> transmit information with json without change in code base. >> >> Currently I didn't plan time to work on it but I will try to help you if you >> move forward :) >> >> Nicolas >> >> >> >> On 12/05/2018 20:02, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>> Hello Everyone, >>> >>> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >>> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, but >>> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >>> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >>> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >>> through. >>> >>> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure I >>> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem is >>> simply .. TOO BIG >>> >>> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >>> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >>> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So I >>> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >>> >>> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >>> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >>> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >>> work with. >>> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an excellent >>> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give dynamic >>> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >>> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can begin >>> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >>> buttons etc .. >>> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in Vue.js >>> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above mentioned >>> libraries and widgets >>> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means that >>> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little bit >>> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >>> >>> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >>> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation in >>> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface looks >>> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >>> >>> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >>> >>> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >>> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >>> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >>> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >>> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >>> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >>> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >>> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >>> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >>> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >>> |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
In reply to this post by taher
Taher Alkhateeb <[hidden email]> writes:
> So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that > we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data > fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good > strategy. > > A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies > heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been > immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However, > of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations > or the need to integrate with other systems. > > So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that > "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable > in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through > the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both > strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web > APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service > calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious > things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget > system itself (also a good idea!) I don't know much Vue.js, but supposing it has the same concepts as React and Angular. I would say that those frameworks implement their own notion of widget which they call “components”. So if OFBiz was about to provide some reusable components based on a default JS framework to build single page applications, that could probably achieve the same benefits in term of fast implementation as Widgets. > Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the > implementation of web services, but I think introducing these > frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. I would guess the benefits depend on how their are introduced. If that couples OFBiz with those frameworks then the technical tradeoffs and perennity of those frameworks need to be considered carefully. AIUI Web services seems hardly avoidable to decouple the JS framework from the Renderer, but maybe I am overlooking something? FYI I am currently working on finding a solution to let external applications access OFBiz services/entities via a REST API [1]. [1] https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ofbiz-dev/201804.mbox/%3Ce373cd98-12b7-247b-3c73-9402f1135267%40nereide.fr%3E -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37 |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by taher
Hi Scott, Taher,
I think you are both right, and maybe because you are mostly working for 2 different markets or have different types of clients. Anyway, what I mean is: 1. Form widgets are not of much use when you have to deploy a new UI for an ecommerce or alike project (frontend). 2. They are very useful when you are working on a backend project (ie ERP part) where people don't care much about bells and whistle (even if that's less and less happening) but want a fast ROI ("time-to-market reasons" as said Taher) I don't know if Mathieu will get enough time to succeed on his project. But obviously if we had the possibility to generate RESTful web services from OFBiz services, with the export attribute like for SOAP and RMI, then Scott's idea would be fulfilled and that would help much, not only in the UI area of course. Now for widgets, the form part could maybe slowly replaced by using tools like Bootstrap and Vue.js. Or the new flavor in some years and that must be very seriously taken into account to not have to redo it again, in few years... Jacques Le 15/05/2018 à 12:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you! > > So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that > we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data > fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good > strategy. > > A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies > heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been > immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However, > of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations > or the need to integrate with other systems. > > So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that > "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable > in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through > the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both > strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web > APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service > calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious > things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget > system itself (also a good idea!) > > Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the > implementation of web services, but I think introducing these > frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi Taher, >> >> I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web APIs to >> access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of UI >> technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. No one >> would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because they could >> build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the >> server-side code. >> >> Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, >> inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our services >> are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy modification of the >> server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders to ofbiz >> from another application, I can't really do anything without interacting >> with the OFBiz UI. >> >> The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve a >> completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor of the >> month UI framework to build it with. >> >> All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be nice if any >> UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used both by >> our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone else's >> framework of choice. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> >> On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Scott, >>> >>> Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully >>> understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services that can >>> sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and weaving >>> in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is inefficient >>> in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in place? >>> What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? >>> >>> I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better understanding of >>> your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural >>> decision. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> I think no matter what we use someone will always want something >>>>> different. >>>>>> I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written >>>>> over >>>>>> the years to support custom UIs. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting >>>> our >>>>>> existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at >>> new >>>> UI >>>>>> frameworks. >>>>> Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why >>>>> rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? >>>>> What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? >>>>> >>>> No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services >>> custom >>>> projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less >>> time >>>> and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project without >>>> even touching the existing codebase. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI >>>>>> customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the >>> workload >>>>> much >>>>>> more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely >>>>> rewritten, >>>>>> although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. >>>>> The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The >>>>> reasons I suggested these libraries are: >>>>> - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a >>>>> powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, >>>>> tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. >>>>> - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context >>>>> model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and >>>>> Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to >>>>> keep jumping between many pages to get something done. >>>>> >>>>>> Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only >>>> defines >>>>> a >>>>>> basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using >>> the >>>>>> likes of swagger and restful APIs? >>>>> Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the >>>>> first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I >>>>> was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to >>>>> GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. >>>>> However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm >>>>> just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong >>>>> with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? >>>>> >>>> Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions and >>>> efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some thoughts >>>> on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < >>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >>>>>>> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, >>> but >>>>>>> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >>>>>>> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >>>>>>> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >>>>>>> through. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure >>> I >>>>>>> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem >>> is >>>>>>> simply .. TOO BIG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >>>>>>> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >>>>>>> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So >>> I >>>>>>> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >>>>>>> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >>>>>>> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >>>>>>> work with. >>>>>>> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an >>> excellent >>>>>>> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give >>> dynamic >>>>>>> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >>>>>>> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can >>> begin >>>>>>> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >>>>>>> buttons etc .. >>>>>>> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in >>> Vue.js >>>>>>> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above >>> mentioned >>>>>>> libraries and widgets >>>>>>> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means >>> that >>>>>>> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little >>> bit >>>>>>> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >>>>>>> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation >>> in >>>>>>> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface >>> looks >>>>>>> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >>>>>>> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >>>>>>> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >>>>>>> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >>>>>>> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >>>>>>> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >>>>>>> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >>>>>>> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >>>>>>> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >>>>>>> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >>>>>>> |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
Hi List ,
The default UI of OFBiz does look aged but I feel it does a great job of being productive. As discussed before also ERP being a serious backroom software and mostly operated by staff to whom all the bells and whistles of modern frameworks may not make any difference. But since adoption of OFBiz to enterprises is dependent on decision makers/ influencer who may not even know the nuances of UI and its relation to productivity it is important to look modern and shiny and which is the reason of this thread by Mr. Taher. Hence IMHO its good and required for OFBiz. At the same time we need to increase the comfort level of system integrators and people who use ofbiz as a framework. I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers and system integrators / framework users. I also humbly feel while this modernization is done, the existing interface should not be done away with as people develop very strange and innovative comfort zones with software UIs which are difficult to anticipate by developers. my 2cents. regds mallah. On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux < [hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Scott, Taher, > > I think you are both right, and maybe because you are mostly working for 2 > different markets or have different types of clients. > > Anyway, what I mean is: > > 1. Form widgets are not of much use when you have to deploy a new UI for > an ecommerce or alike project (frontend). > 2. They are very useful when you are working on a backend project (ie ERP > part) where people don't care much about bells and whistle (even if that's > less and less happening) but want a fast ROI ("time-to-market reasons" > as said Taher) > > I don't know if Mathieu will get enough time to succeed on his project. > But obviously if we had the possibility to generate RESTful web services > from OFBiz services, with the export attribute like for SOAP and RMI, then > Scott's idea would be fulfilled and that would help much, not only in the > UI area of course. > > Now for widgets, the form part could maybe slowly replaced by using tools > like Bootstrap and Vue.js. Or the new flavor in some years and that must be > very seriously taken into account to not have to redo it again, in few > years... > > Jacques > > > > Le 15/05/2018 à 12:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > >> Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you! >> >> So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that >> we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data >> fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good >> strategy. >> >> A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies >> heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been >> immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However, >> of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations >> or the need to integrate with other systems. >> >> So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that >> "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable >> in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through >> the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both >> strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web >> APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service >> calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious >> things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget >> system itself (also a good idea!) >> >> Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the >> implementation of web services, but I think introducing these >> frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. >> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Taher, >>> >>> I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web APIs to >>> access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of UI >>> technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. No >>> one >>> would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because they could >>> build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the >>> server-side code. >>> >>> Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, >>> inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our services >>> are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy modification of >>> the >>> server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders to >>> ofbiz >>> from another application, I can't really do anything without interacting >>> with the OFBiz UI. >>> >>> The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve a >>> completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor of the >>> month UI framework to build it with. >>> >>> All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be nice if >>> any >>> UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used both by >>> our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone else's >>> framework of choice. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Scott, >>>> >>>> Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully >>>> understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services that can >>>> sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and >>>> weaving >>>> in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is >>>> inefficient >>>> in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in place? >>>> What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? >>>> >>>> I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better understanding >>>> of >>>> your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural >>>> decision. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email] >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray >>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think no matter what we use someone will always want something >>>>>>> >>>>>> different. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written >>>>>>> >>>>>> over >>>>>> >>>>>>> the years to support custom UIs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting >>>>>>> >>>>>> our >>>>> >>>>>> existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at >>>>>>> >>>>>> new >>>> >>>>> UI >>>>> >>>>>> frameworks. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why >>>>>> rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? >>>>>> What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services >>>>> >>>> custom >>>> >>>>> projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less >>>>> >>>> time >>>> >>>>> and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project >>>>> without >>>>> even touching the existing codebase. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI >>>>>>> customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the >>>>>>> >>>>>> workload >>>> >>>>> much >>>>>> >>>>>>> more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely >>>>>>> >>>>>> rewritten, >>>>>> >>>>>>> although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The >>>>>> reasons I suggested these libraries are: >>>>>> - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a >>>>>> powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, >>>>>> tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. >>>>>> - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context >>>>>> model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and >>>>>> Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to >>>>>> keep jumping between many pages to get something done. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only >>>>>>> >>>>>> defines >>>>> >>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>>> basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> likes of swagger and restful APIs? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the >>>>>> first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I >>>>>> was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to >>>>>> GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. >>>>>> However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm >>>>>> just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong >>>>>> with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions >>>>> and >>>>> efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some >>>>> thoughts >>>>> on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < >>>>>>> >>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >>>>>>>> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> but >>>> >>>>> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >>>>>>>> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >>>>>>>> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >>>>>>>> through. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I >>>> >>>>> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> is >>>> >>>>> simply .. TOO BIG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >>>>>>>> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >>>>>>>> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I >>>> >>>>> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >>>>>>>> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >>>>>>>> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >>>>>>>> work with. >>>>>>>> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> excellent >>>> >>>>> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> dynamic >>>> >>>>> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >>>>>>>> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> begin >>>> >>>>> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >>>>>>>> buttons etc .. >>>>>>>> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vue.js >>>> >>>>> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> mentioned >>>> >>>>> libraries and widgets >>>>>>>> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> that >>>> >>>>> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> bit >>>> >>>>> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >>>>>>>> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> in >>>> >>>>> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> looks >>>> >>>>> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >>>>>>>> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >>>>>>>> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >>>>>>>> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >>>>>>>> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >>>>>>>> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >>>>>>>> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >>>>>>>> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >>>>>>>> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >>>>>>>> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
Hi,
+1 For Jacques, Scot & Rajesh’s View Point. > "I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and > if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices > ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers > and > system integrators / framework users." This is been discussed in few other threads but this is a issue that is long due. And would love to see the community to finally address this. @Taher: Webservice to consume JSON would be the most beneficial and desired enhancement to the framework. Thx & Rgds, Pratiek > On 17-May-2018, at 9:27 PM, Rajesh Mallah <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi List , > > The default UI of OFBiz does look aged but I feel it does a great job > of being productive. As discussed before also ERP being a serious > backroom software and mostly operated by staff to whom all the bells > and whistles of modern frameworks may not make any difference. > > But since adoption of OFBiz to enterprises is dependent on decision makers/ > influencer who may not even know the nuances of UI and its relation to > productivity it is important to look modern and shiny and which is the > reason of > this thread by Mr. Taher. > > > Hence IMHO its good and required for OFBiz. > > At the same time we need to increase the comfort level of system integrators > and people who use ofbiz as a framework. > > I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and > if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices > ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers > and > system integrators / framework users. > > I also humbly feel while this modernization is done, the existing interface > should > not be done away with as people develop very strange and innovative comfort > zones with software UIs which are difficult to anticipate by developers. > > my 2cents. > > > regds > mallah. > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi Scott, Taher, >> >> I think you are both right, and maybe because you are mostly working for 2 >> different markets or have different types of clients. >> >> Anyway, what I mean is: >> >> 1. Form widgets are not of much use when you have to deploy a new UI for >> an ecommerce or alike project (frontend). >> 2. They are very useful when you are working on a backend project (ie ERP >> part) where people don't care much about bells and whistle (even if that's >> less and less happening) but want a fast ROI ("time-to-market reasons" >> as said Taher) >> >> I don't know if Mathieu will get enough time to succeed on his project. >> But obviously if we had the possibility to generate RESTful web services >> from OFBiz services, with the export attribute like for SOAP and RMI, then >> Scott's idea would be fulfilled and that would help much, not only in the >> UI area of course. >> >> Now for widgets, the form part could maybe slowly replaced by using tools >> like Bootstrap and Vue.js. Or the new flavor in some years and that must be >> very seriously taken into account to not have to redo it again, in few >> years... >> >> Jacques >> >> >> >> Le 15/05/2018 à 12:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : >> >>> Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you! >>> >>> So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that >>> we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data >>> fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good >>> strategy. >>> >>> A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies >>> heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been >>> immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However, >>> of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations >>> or the need to integrate with other systems. >>> >>> So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that >>> "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable >>> in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through >>> the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both >>> strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web >>> APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service >>> calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious >>> things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget >>> system itself (also a good idea!) >>> >>> Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the >>> implementation of web services, but I think introducing these >>> frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. >>> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Taher, >>>> >>>> I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web APIs to >>>> access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of UI >>>> technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. No >>>> one >>>> would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because they could >>>> build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the >>>> server-side code. >>>> >>>> Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, >>>> inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our services >>>> are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy modification of >>>> the >>>> server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders to >>>> ofbiz >>>> from another application, I can't really do anything without interacting >>>> with the OFBiz UI. >>>> >>>> The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve a >>>> completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor of the >>>> month UI framework to build it with. >>>> >>>> All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be nice if >>>> any >>>> UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used both by >>>> our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone else's >>>> framework of choice. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Scott, >>>>> >>>>> Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully >>>>> understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services that can >>>>> sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and >>>>> weaving >>>>> in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is >>>>> inefficient >>>>> in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in place? >>>>> What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? >>>>> >>>>> I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better understanding >>>>> of >>>>> your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural >>>>> decision. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email] >>>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think no matter what we use someone will always want something >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> over >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the years to support custom UIs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> our >>>>>> >>>>>>> existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> new >>>>> >>>>>> UI >>>>>> >>>>>>> frameworks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why >>>>>>> rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? >>>>>>> What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services >>>>>> >>>>> custom >>>>> >>>>>> projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less >>>>>> >>>>> time >>>>> >>>>>> and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project >>>>>> without >>>>>> even touching the existing codebase. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI >>>>>>>> customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> workload >>>>> >>>>>> much >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> rewritten, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The >>>>>>> reasons I suggested these libraries are: >>>>>>> - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a >>>>>>> powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, >>>>>>> tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. >>>>>>> - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context >>>>>>> model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and >>>>>>> Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to >>>>>>> keep jumping between many pages to get something done. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> defines >>>>>> >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> likes of swagger and restful APIs? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the >>>>>>> first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I >>>>>>> was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to >>>>>>> GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. >>>>>>> However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm >>>>>>> just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong >>>>>>> with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions >>>>>> and >>>>>> efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some >>>>>> thoughts >>>>>> on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >>>>>>>>> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but >>>>> >>>>>> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >>>>>>>>> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >>>>>>>>> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >>>>>>>>> through. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>> >>>>>> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>> simply .. TOO BIG >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >>>>>>>>> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >>>>>>>>> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I >>>>> >>>>>> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >>>>>>>>> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >>>>>>>>> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >>>>>>>>> work with. >>>>>>>>> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> excellent >>>>> >>>>>> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> dynamic >>>>> >>>>>> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >>>>>>>>> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> begin >>>>> >>>>>> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >>>>>>>>> buttons etc .. >>>>>>>>> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vue.js >>>>> >>>>>> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mentioned >>>>> >>>>>> libraries and widgets >>>>>>>>> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that >>>>> >>>>>> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> bit >>>>> >>>>>> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >>>>>>>>> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in >>>>> >>>>>> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> looks >>>>> >>>>>> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >>>>>>>>> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >>>>>>>>> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >>>>>>>>> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >>>>>>>>> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >>>>>>>>> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >>>>>>>>> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >>>>>>>>> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >>>>>>>>> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >>>>>>>>> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> |
|
|
This was a thought provoking and interesting discussion and I learned
new stuff from it, so thank you all for your valuable input. On further reflection and after thinking about your comments, I think Vue.js would be influenced in its design if we have a REST API in place, however, something like Bootstrap is not relevant because it is just a pure CSS / Javascript library to offer a grid system and some user interface widgets. It has no model to bind to nor does it require any back-end traffic (SPA stuff). So I recommend proceeding with Bootstrap, and we can delay something like Vue.js while we proceed in implementing the Web Services API. I'll start or find another thread for that discussion. WDYT? On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:43 AM, innate Genius <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > +1 For Jacques, Scot & Rajesh’s View Point. > >> "I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and >> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices >> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers >> and >> system integrators / framework users." > > This is been discussed in few other threads but this is a issue that is long due. And would love to see the community to finally address this. > > @Taher: Webservice to consume JSON would be the most beneficial and desired enhancement to the framework. > > Thx & Rgds, > > Pratiek > >> On 17-May-2018, at 9:27 PM, Rajesh Mallah <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi List , >> >> The default UI of OFBiz does look aged but I feel it does a great job >> of being productive. As discussed before also ERP being a serious >> backroom software and mostly operated by staff to whom all the bells >> and whistles of modern frameworks may not make any difference. >> >> But since adoption of OFBiz to enterprises is dependent on decision makers/ >> influencer who may not even know the nuances of UI and its relation to >> productivity it is important to look modern and shiny and which is the >> reason of >> this thread by Mr. Taher. >> >> >> Hence IMHO its good and required for OFBiz. >> >> At the same time we need to increase the comfort level of system integrators >> and people who use ofbiz as a framework. >> >> I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and >> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices >> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers >> and >> system integrators / framework users. >> >> I also humbly feel while this modernization is done, the existing interface >> should >> not be done away with as people develop very strange and innovative comfort >> zones with software UIs which are difficult to anticipate by developers. >> >> my 2cents. >> >> >> regds >> mallah. >> >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Scott, Taher, >>> >>> I think you are both right, and maybe because you are mostly working for 2 >>> different markets or have different types of clients. >>> >>> Anyway, what I mean is: >>> >>> 1. Form widgets are not of much use when you have to deploy a new UI for >>> an ecommerce or alike project (frontend). >>> 2. They are very useful when you are working on a backend project (ie ERP >>> part) where people don't care much about bells and whistle (even if that's >>> less and less happening) but want a fast ROI ("time-to-market reasons" >>> as said Taher) >>> >>> I don't know if Mathieu will get enough time to succeed on his project. >>> But obviously if we had the possibility to generate RESTful web services >>> from OFBiz services, with the export attribute like for SOAP and RMI, then >>> Scott's idea would be fulfilled and that would help much, not only in the >>> UI area of course. >>> >>> Now for widgets, the form part could maybe slowly replaced by using tools >>> like Bootstrap and Vue.js. Or the new flavor in some years and that must be >>> very seriously taken into account to not have to redo it again, in few >>> years... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 15/05/2018 à 12:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : >>> >>>> Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you! >>>> >>>> So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that >>>> we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data >>>> fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good >>>> strategy. >>>> >>>> A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies >>>> heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been >>>> immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However, >>>> of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations >>>> or the need to integrate with other systems. >>>> >>>> So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that >>>> "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable >>>> in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through >>>> the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both >>>> strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web >>>> APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service >>>> calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious >>>> things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget >>>> system itself (also a good idea!) >>>> >>>> Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the >>>> implementation of web services, but I think introducing these >>>> frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Taher, >>>>> >>>>> I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web APIs to >>>>> access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of UI >>>>> technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. No >>>>> one >>>>> would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because they could >>>>> build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the >>>>> server-side code. >>>>> >>>>> Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, >>>>> inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our services >>>>> are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy modification of >>>>> the >>>>> server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders to >>>>> ofbiz >>>>> from another application, I can't really do anything without interacting >>>>> with the OFBiz UI. >>>>> >>>>> The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve a >>>>> completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor of the >>>>> month UI framework to build it with. >>>>> >>>>> All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be nice if >>>>> any >>>>> UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used both by >>>>> our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone else's >>>>> framework of choice. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Scott, >>>>>> >>>>>> Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully >>>>>> understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services that can >>>>>> sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and >>>>>> weaving >>>>>> in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is >>>>>> inefficient >>>>>> in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in place? >>>>>> What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? >>>>>> >>>>>> I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better understanding >>>>>> of >>>>>> your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural >>>>>> decision. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray <[hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think no matter what we use someone will always want something >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> different. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the years to support custom UIs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> new >>>>>> >>>>>>> UI >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> frameworks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why >>>>>>>> rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? >>>>>>>> What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services >>>>>>> >>>>>> custom >>>>>> >>>>>>> projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less >>>>>>> >>>>>> time >>>>>> >>>>>>> and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> even touching the existing codebase. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI >>>>>>>>> customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> workload >>>>>> >>>>>>> much >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> rewritten, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The >>>>>>>> reasons I suggested these libraries are: >>>>>>>> - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a >>>>>>>> powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, >>>>>>>> tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. >>>>>>>> - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context >>>>>>>> model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and >>>>>>>> Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to >>>>>>>> keep jumping between many pages to get something done. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> defines >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>>> likes of swagger and restful APIs? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the >>>>>>>> first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I >>>>>>>> was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to >>>>>>>> GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. >>>>>>>> However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm >>>>>>>> just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong >>>>>>>> with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some >>>>>>> thoughts >>>>>>> on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >>>>>>>>>> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>> >>>>>>> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >>>>>>>>>> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >>>>>>>>>> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >>>>>>>>>> through. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>> >>>>>>> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>>> simply .. TOO BIG >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >>>>>>>>>> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >>>>>>>>>> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>> >>>>>>> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >>>>>>>>>> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >>>>>>>>>> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >>>>>>>>>> work with. >>>>>>>>>> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> excellent >>>>>> >>>>>>> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dynamic >>>>>> >>>>>>> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >>>>>>>>>> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> begin >>>>>> >>>>>>> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >>>>>>>>>> buttons etc .. >>>>>>>>>> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vue.js >>>>>> >>>>>>> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mentioned >>>>>> >>>>>>> libraries and widgets >>>>>>>>>> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>>> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>> >>>>>>> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >>>>>>>>>> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>> >>>>>>> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> looks >>>>>> >>>>>>> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >>>>>>>>>> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >>>>>>>>>> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >>>>>>>>>> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >>>>>>>>>> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >>>>>>>>>> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >>>>>>>>>> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >>>>>>>>>> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >>>>>>>>>> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> > |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
Administrator
|
That sounds realistic, pragmatic and to the point
+1 Jacques Le 19/05/2018 à 20:31, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > This was a thought provoking and interesting discussion and I learned > new stuff from it, so thank you all for your valuable input. > > On further reflection and after thinking about your comments, I think > Vue.js would be influenced in its design if we have a REST API in > place, however, something like Bootstrap is not relevant because it is > just a pure CSS / Javascript library to offer a grid system and some > user interface widgets. It has no model to bind to nor does it require > any back-end traffic (SPA stuff). > > So I recommend proceeding with Bootstrap, and we can delay something > like Vue.js while we proceed in implementing the Web Services API. > I'll start or find another thread for that discussion. > > WDYT? > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:43 AM, innate Genius > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> +1 For Jacques, Scot & Rajesh’s View Point. >> >>> "I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and >>> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices >>> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers >>> and >>> system integrators / framework users." >> This is been discussed in few other threads but this is a issue that is long due. And would love to see the community to finally address this. >> >> @Taher: Webservice to consume JSON would be the most beneficial and desired enhancement to the framework. >> >> Thx & Rgds, >> >> Pratiek >> >>> On 17-May-2018, at 9:27 PM, Rajesh Mallah <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi List , >>> >>> The default UI of OFBiz does look aged but I feel it does a great job >>> of being productive. As discussed before also ERP being a serious >>> backroom software and mostly operated by staff to whom all the bells >>> and whistles of modern frameworks may not make any difference. >>> >>> But since adoption of OFBiz to enterprises is dependent on decision makers/ >>> influencer who may not even know the nuances of UI and its relation to >>> productivity it is important to look modern and shiny and which is the >>> reason of >>> this thread by Mr. Taher. >>> >>> >>> Hence IMHO its good and required for OFBiz. >>> >>> At the same time we need to increase the comfort level of system integrators >>> and people who use ofbiz as a framework. >>> >>> I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and >>> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices >>> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers >>> and >>> system integrators / framework users. >>> >>> I also humbly feel while this modernization is done, the existing interface >>> should >>> not be done away with as people develop very strange and innovative comfort >>> zones with software UIs which are difficult to anticipate by developers. >>> >>> my 2cents. >>> >>> >>> regds >>> mallah. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Scott, Taher, >>>> >>>> I think you are both right, and maybe because you are mostly working for 2 >>>> different markets or have different types of clients. >>>> >>>> Anyway, what I mean is: >>>> >>>> 1. Form widgets are not of much use when you have to deploy a new UI for >>>> an ecommerce or alike project (frontend). >>>> 2. They are very useful when you are working on a backend project (ie ERP >>>> part) where people don't care much about bells and whistle (even if that's >>>> less and less happening) but want a fast ROI ("time-to-market reasons" >>>> as said Taher) >>>> >>>> I don't know if Mathieu will get enough time to succeed on his project. >>>> But obviously if we had the possibility to generate RESTful web services >>>> from OFBiz services, with the export attribute like for SOAP and RMI, then >>>> Scott's idea would be fulfilled and that would help much, not only in the >>>> UI area of course. >>>> >>>> Now for widgets, the form part could maybe slowly replaced by using tools >>>> like Bootstrap and Vue.js. Or the new flavor in some years and that must be >>>> very seriously taken into account to not have to redo it again, in few >>>> years... >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 15/05/2018 à 12:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that >>>>> we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data >>>>> fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good >>>>> strategy. >>>>> >>>>> A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies >>>>> heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been >>>>> immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However, >>>>> of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations >>>>> or the need to integrate with other systems. >>>>> >>>>> So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that >>>>> "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable >>>>> in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through >>>>> the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both >>>>> strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web >>>>> APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service >>>>> calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious >>>>> things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget >>>>> system itself (also a good idea!) >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the >>>>> implementation of web services, but I think introducing these >>>>> frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Taher, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web APIs to >>>>>> access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of UI >>>>>> technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. No >>>>>> one >>>>>> would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because they could >>>>>> build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the >>>>>> server-side code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, >>>>>> inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our services >>>>>> are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy modification of >>>>>> the >>>>>> server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders to >>>>>> ofbiz >>>>>> from another application, I can't really do anything without interacting >>>>>> with the OFBiz UI. >>>>>> >>>>>> The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve a >>>>>> completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor of the >>>>>> month UI framework to build it with. >>>>>> >>>>>> All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be nice if >>>>>> any >>>>>> UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used both by >>>>>> our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone else's >>>>>> framework of choice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Scott, >>>>>>> Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully >>>>>>> understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services that can >>>>>>> sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and >>>>>>> weaving >>>>>>> in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is >>>>>>> inefficient >>>>>>> in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in place? >>>>>>> What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better understanding >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural >>>>>>> decision. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray <[hidden email]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... >>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray >>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think no matter what we use someone will always want something >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> different. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the years to support custom UIs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>> existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at >>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>> UI >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> frameworks. >>>>>>>>> Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why >>>>>>>>> rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? >>>>>>>>> What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services >>>>>>> custom >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project >>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>> even touching the existing codebase. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI >>>>>>>>>> customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> workload >>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>> more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> rewritten, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The >>>>>>>>> reasons I suggested these libraries are: >>>>>>>>> - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a >>>>>>>>> powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, >>>>>>>>> tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. >>>>>>>>> - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context >>>>>>>>> model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and >>>>>>>>> Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to >>>>>>>>> keep jumping between many pages to get something done. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only >>>>>>>>> defines >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> likes of swagger and restful APIs? >>>>>>>>> Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the >>>>>>>>> first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I >>>>>>>>> was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to >>>>>>>>> GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. >>>>>>>>> However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm >>>>>>>>> just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong >>>>>>>>> with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some >>>>>>>> thoughts >>>>>>>> on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >>>>>>>>>>> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >>>>>>>>>>> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >>>>>>>>>>> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >>>>>>>>>>> through. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> simply .. TOO BIG >>>>>>>>>>> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >>>>>>>>>>> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >>>>>>>>>>> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >>>>>>>>>>> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >>>>>>>>>>> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >>>>>>>>>>> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >>>>>>>>>>> work with. >>>>>>>>>>> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> excellent >>>>>>>> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give >>>>>>>>>> dynamic >>>>>>>> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >>>>>>>>>>> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> begin >>>>>>>> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >>>>>>>>>>> buttons etc .. >>>>>>>>>>> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Vue.js >>>>>>>> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above >>>>>>>>>> mentioned >>>>>>>> libraries and widgets >>>>>>>>>>> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little >>>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >>>>>>>>>>> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >>>>>>>>>>> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface >>>>>>>>>> looks >>>>>>>> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >>>>>>>>>>> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >>>>>>>>>>> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >>>>>>>>>>> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >>>>>>>>>>> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
In reply to this post by taher
+1.
Excellent. -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Taher Alkhateeb [mailto:[hidden email]] 发送时间: 2018年5月20日 2:31 收件人: OFBIZ Development Mailing List 主题: Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js This was a thought provoking and interesting discussion and I learned new stuff from it, so thank you all for your valuable input. On further reflection and after thinking about your comments, I think Vue.js would be influenced in its design if we have a REST API in place, however, something like Bootstrap is not relevant because it is just a pure CSS / Javascript library to offer a grid system and some user interface widgets. It has no model to bind to nor does it require any back-end traffic (SPA stuff). So I recommend proceeding with Bootstrap, and we can delay something like Vue.js while we proceed in implementing the Web Services API. I'll start or find another thread for that discussion. WDYT? On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:43 AM, innate Genius <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > +1 For Jacques, Scot & Rajesh’s View Point. > >> "I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and >> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices >> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers >> and >> system integrators / framework users." > > This is been discussed in few other threads but this is a issue that is long due. And would love to see the community to finally address this. > > @Taher: Webservice to consume JSON would be the most beneficial and desired enhancement to the framework. > > Thx & Rgds, > > Pratiek > >> On 17-May-2018, at 9:27 PM, Rajesh Mallah <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi List , >> >> The default UI of OFBiz does look aged but I feel it does a great job >> of being productive. As discussed before also ERP being a serious >> backroom software and mostly operated by staff to whom all the bells >> and whistles of modern frameworks may not make any difference. >> >> But since adoption of OFBiz to enterprises is dependent on decision makers/ >> influencer who may not even know the nuances of UI and its relation to >> productivity it is important to look modern and shiny and which is the >> reason of >> this thread by Mr. Taher. >> >> >> Hence IMHO its good and required for OFBiz. >> >> At the same time we need to increase the comfort level of system integrators >> and people who use ofbiz as a framework. >> >> I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and >> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices >> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers >> and >> system integrators / framework users. >> >> I also humbly feel while this modernization is done, the existing interface >> should >> not be done away with as people develop very strange and innovative comfort >> zones with software UIs which are difficult to anticipate by developers. >> >> my 2cents. >> >> >> regds >> mallah. >> >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Scott, Taher, >>> >>> I think you are both right, and maybe because you are mostly working for 2 >>> different markets or have different types of clients. >>> >>> Anyway, what I mean is: >>> >>> 1. Form widgets are not of much use when you have to deploy a new UI for >>> an ecommerce or alike project (frontend). >>> 2. They are very useful when you are working on a backend project (ie ERP >>> part) where people don't care much about bells and whistle (even if that's >>> less and less happening) but want a fast ROI ("time-to-market reasons" >>> as said Taher) >>> >>> I don't know if Mathieu will get enough time to succeed on his project. >>> But obviously if we had the possibility to generate RESTful web services >>> from OFBiz services, with the export attribute like for SOAP and RMI, then >>> Scott's idea would be fulfilled and that would help much, not only in the >>> UI area of course. >>> >>> Now for widgets, the form part could maybe slowly replaced by using tools >>> like Bootstrap and Vue.js. Or the new flavor in some years and that must be >>> very seriously taken into account to not have to redo it again, in few >>> years... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 15/05/2018 à 12:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : >>> >>>> Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you! >>>> >>>> So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that >>>> we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data >>>> fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good >>>> strategy. >>>> >>>> A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies >>>> heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been >>>> immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However, >>>> of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations >>>> or the need to integrate with other systems. >>>> >>>> So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that >>>> "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable >>>> in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through >>>> the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both >>>> strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web >>>> APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service >>>> calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious >>>> things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget >>>> system itself (also a good idea!) >>>> >>>> Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the >>>> implementation of web services, but I think introducing these >>>> frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Taher, >>>>> >>>>> I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web APIs to >>>>> access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of UI >>>>> technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. No >>>>> one >>>>> would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because they could >>>>> build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the >>>>> server-side code. >>>>> >>>>> Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, >>>>> inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our services >>>>> are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy modification of >>>>> the >>>>> server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders to >>>>> ofbiz >>>>> from another application, I can't really do anything without interacting >>>>> with the OFBiz UI. >>>>> >>>>> The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve a >>>>> completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor of the >>>>> month UI framework to build it with. >>>>> >>>>> All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be nice if >>>>> any >>>>> UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used both by >>>>> our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone else's >>>>> framework of choice. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Scott, >>>>>> >>>>>> Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully >>>>>> understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services that can >>>>>> sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and >>>>>> weaving >>>>>> in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is >>>>>> inefficient >>>>>> in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in place? >>>>>> What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? >>>>>> >>>>>> I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better understanding >>>>>> of >>>>>> your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural >>>>>> decision. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray <[hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, <[hidden email] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think no matter what we use someone will always want something >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> different. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've written >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the years to support custom UIs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and rewriting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> our >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> new >>>>>> >>>>>>> UI >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> frameworks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why >>>>>>>> rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing functionality? >>>>>>>> What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web services >>>>>>> >>>>>> custom >>>>>> >>>>>>> projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot less >>>>>>> >>>>>> time >>>>>> >>>>>>> and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> even touching the existing codebase. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI >>>>>>>>> customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> workload >>>>>> >>>>>>> much >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> rewritten, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales process. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The >>>>>>>> reasons I suggested these libraries are: >>>>>>>> - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a >>>>>>>> powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, >>>>>>>> tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. >>>>>>>> - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your context >>>>>>>> model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and >>>>>>>> Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 to >>>>>>>> keep jumping between many pages to get something done. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> defines >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is using >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>>> likes of swagger and restful APIs? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be the >>>>>>>> first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and I >>>>>>>> was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to >>>>>>>> GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. >>>>>>>> However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, I'm >>>>>>>> just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's wrong >>>>>>>> with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many discussions >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some >>>>>>> thoughts >>>>>>> on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale effort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and the >>>>>>>>>> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning well, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>> >>>>>>> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many >>>>>>>>>> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] >>>>>>>>>> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to follow >>>>>>>>>> through. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not sure >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>> >>>>>>> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>>> simply .. TOO BIG >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some initial >>>>>>>>>> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) needs to >>>>>>>>>> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>> >>>>>>> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. Bootstrap >>>>>>>>>> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive website >>>>>>>>>> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful widgets to >>>>>>>>>> work with. >>>>>>>>>> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> excellent >>>>>> >>>>>>> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dynamic >>>>>> >>>>>>> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages >>>>>>>>>> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> begin >>>>>> >>>>>>> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then >>>>>>>>>> buttons etc .. >>>>>>>>>> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vue.js >>>>>> >>>>>>> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mentioned >>>>>> >>>>>>> libraries and widgets >>>>>>>>>> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>>> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>> >>>>>>> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if that >>>>>>>>>> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full implementation >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>> >>>>>>> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> looks >>>>>> >>>>>>> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr >>>>>>>>>> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO >>>>>>>>>> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 >>>>>>>>>> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D >>>>>>>>>> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB >>>>>>>>>> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E >>>>>>>>>> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo >>>>>>>>>> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx >>>>>>>>>> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> > |
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
|
|
Hi guys
I've been away for a while so my input maybe a bit behind the curve. Having said that, I have some useful Bootstrap-with-Ofbiz experience under the belt which may be relevant to this discussion: 1. Bootstrap is mainly CSS. It's pretty, but with limited JavaScript functionality. In-fact JS in Bootstrap is entirely optional because it doesn't pretend to be a JS Framework. 2. You will be required to mine 3rd party plugins/widgets to cover functionalities absent from Bootstrap - and those may not be well-maintained. Risky! 3. Autocomplete and Date Picking functions specifically - frequently used in Ofbiz, but not "native" in Bootstrap. This sometimes leads to all manner of conflicts and complicates manageability. If your only criteria for Bootstrap is grid-layout capabilities, consider that grid is quite easily attainable with pure CSS through the @media selector used with break points. Secondly, "Grid" will become a standard in CSS (see https://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-2/). The investment in a "framework" for "Grid" only - that's an overkill. My 2 Cents: 1. How about jQuery Mobile(JQM)? It's part of the jQuery family. We already use jQuery as JavaScript framework, to use JQM would be a logical extension. 2. JQM covers SPA - an important functionality identified by some in this thread. 3. JQM fits in nicely with jQuery UI - something which we are already using in Ofbiz with autocomplete/suggest, date picking and modals. Final thoughts - Cleaner separation between JS and Freemarker using HTML elements: 1. We are not using new outlining and sectioning elements like <section>, <article>, <nav>, <header>, <footer>, or <aside> in our templates. They hold obvious advantages. 2. Global data-* attributes. We're not using this at all. It can help us to reduce JS in Freemarker templates. Regards Gavin On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Shi Jinghai <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1. > > Excellent. > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Taher Alkhateeb [mailto:[hidden email]] > 发送时间: 2018年5月20日 2:31 > 收件人: OFBIZ Development Mailing List > 主题: Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js > > This was a thought provoking and interesting discussion and I learned > new stuff from it, so thank you all for your valuable input. > > On further reflection and after thinking about your comments, I think > Vue.js would be influenced in its design if we have a REST API in > place, however, something like Bootstrap is not relevant because it is > just a pure CSS / Javascript library to offer a grid system and some > user interface widgets. It has no model to bind to nor does it require > any back-end traffic (SPA stuff). > > So I recommend proceeding with Bootstrap, and we can delay something > like Vue.js while we proceed in implementing the Web Services API. > I'll start or find another thread for that discussion. > > WDYT? > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:43 AM, innate Genius > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > +1 For Jacques, Scot & Rajesh’s View Point. > > > >> "I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and > >> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices > >> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers > >> and > >> system integrators / framework users." > > > > This is been discussed in few other threads but this is a issue that is > long due. And would love to see the community to finally address this. > > > > @Taher: Webservice to consume JSON would be the most beneficial and > desired enhancement to the framework. > > > > Thx & Rgds, > > > > Pratiek > > > >> On 17-May-2018, at 9:27 PM, Rajesh Mallah <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi List , > >> > >> The default UI of OFBiz does look aged but I feel it does a great job > >> of being productive. As discussed before also ERP being a serious > >> backroom software and mostly operated by staff to whom all the bells > >> and whistles of modern frameworks may not make any difference. > >> > >> But since adoption of OFBiz to enterprises is dependent on decision > makers/ > >> influencer who may not even know the nuances of UI and its relation to > >> productivity it is important to look modern and shiny and which is the > >> reason of > >> this thread by Mr. Taher. > >> > >> > >> Hence IMHO its good and required for OFBiz. > >> > >> At the same time we need to increase the comfort level of system > integrators > >> and people who use ofbiz as a framework. > >> > >> I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and > >> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices > >> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers > >> and > >> system integrators / framework users. > >> > >> I also humbly feel while this modernization is done, the existing > interface > >> should > >> not be done away with as people develop very strange and innovative > comfort > >> zones with software UIs which are difficult to anticipate by developers. > >> > >> my 2cents. > >> > >> > >> regds > >> mallah. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux < > >> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Scott, Taher, > >>> > >>> I think you are both right, and maybe because you are mostly working > for 2 > >>> different markets or have different types of clients. > >>> > >>> Anyway, what I mean is: > >>> > >>> 1. Form widgets are not of much use when you have to deploy a new UI > for > >>> an ecommerce or alike project (frontend). > >>> 2. They are very useful when you are working on a backend project (ie > ERP > >>> part) where people don't care much about bells and whistle (even if > that's > >>> less and less happening) but want a fast ROI ("time-to-market > reasons" > >>> as said Taher) > >>> > >>> I don't know if Mathieu will get enough time to succeed on his project. > >>> But obviously if we had the possibility to generate RESTful web > services > >>> from OFBiz services, with the export attribute like for SOAP and RMI, > then > >>> Scott's idea would be fulfilled and that would help much, not only in > the > >>> UI area of course. > >>> > >>> Now for widgets, the form part could maybe slowly replaced by using > tools > >>> like Bootstrap and Vue.js. Or the new flavor in some years and that > must be > >>> very seriously taken into account to not have to redo it again, in few > >>> years... > >>> > >>> Jacques > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Le 15/05/2018 à 12:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > >>> > >>>> Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you! > >>>> > >>>> So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that > >>>> we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data > >>>> fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good > >>>> strategy. > >>>> > >>>> A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies > >>>> heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been > >>>> immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However, > >>>> of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations > >>>> or the need to integrate with other systems. > >>>> > >>>> So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that > >>>> "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable > >>>> in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through > >>>> the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both > >>>> strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web > >>>> APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service > >>>> calls instead of <action>...</action> tags to do quick and obvious > >>>> things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget > >>>> system itself (also a good idea!) > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the > >>>> implementation of web services, but I think introducing these > >>>> frameworks is going to be beneficial either way. > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray > >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Taher, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web > APIs to > >>>>> access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of > UI > >>>>> technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. > No > >>>>> one > >>>>> would be forced to live by our choice of UI frameworks because they > could > >>>>> build anything they liked using the APIs without ever touching the > >>>>> server-side code. > >>>>> > >>>>> Right now our data gathering logic is tightly coupled to our UI, > >>>>> inaccessible to other servers and apps, the vast majority of our > services > >>>>> are built to be run internally by ofbiz. Without heavy modification > of > >>>>> the > >>>>> server side code, I can't build a custom SPA, I can't send orders to > >>>>> ofbiz > >>>>> from another application, I can't really do anything without > interacting > >>>>> with the OFBiz UI. > >>>>> > >>>>> The majority of the client projects I've worked on always involve a > >>>>> completely custom UI and with web APIs I could pick up any flavor of > the > >>>>> month UI framework to build it with. > >>>>> > >>>>> All I'm trying to add to this conversation is that it would be nice > if > >>>>> any > >>>>> UI overhaul started with making APIs available that could be used > both by > >>>>> our framework of choice and be externally accessible to anyone else's > >>>>> framework of choice. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> Scott > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018, 20:27 Taher Alkhateeb, < > [hidden email]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Scott, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again thank you for the input, intriguing. I'm not sure if I fully > >>>>>> understand though. Are you saying we can introduce web services > that can > >>>>>> sort of do away with the widget system to code directly in html and > >>>>>> weaving > >>>>>> in web service calls? How does that make coding faster? What is > >>>>>> inefficient > >>>>>> in the widget system? What kind of architecture should we have in > place? > >>>>>> What is the routing workflow that you're suggesting? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would appreciate a bit more elaboration to get a better > understanding > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> your point of view since this seems to be a critical architectural > >>>>>> decision. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 9:39 PM Scott Gray < > [hidden email]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018, 20:38 Taher Alkhateeb, < > [hidden email] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello Scott, thank you for your thoughts, inline ... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Scott Gray > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think no matter what we use someone will always want something > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> different. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm beginning to lose count of the number of custom APIs I've > written > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> over > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the years to support custom UIs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think the bigger win would be to start providing APIs and > rewriting > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> existing screens to use them. From there we could start looking at > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> new > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> UI > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> frameworks. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do you mean by APIs rewriting our XSD files and model objects? Why > >>>>>>>> rewrite? Why not just enhance them for new / missing > functionality? > >>>>>>>> What are the flaws you'd like to redesign? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, I'm talking about web services. With well designed web > services > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> custom > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> projects would be able to build out new user interfaces in a lot > less > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> time > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> and we'd be able to poc new interfaces for the community project > >>>>>>> without > >>>>>>> even touching the existing codebase. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Most of the projects I've worked on have needed huge amounts of UI > >>>>>>>>> customization and having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> workload > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> much > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> more than having a shinier UI that still needs to be completely > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> rewritten, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> although I'll admit the latter would probably help the sales > process. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The "shiny" part is a plus, but not the core of my suggestion. The > >>>>>>>> reasons I suggested these libraries are: > >>>>>>>> - bootstrap: the grid system, this is the cake for me. You have a > >>>>>>>> powerful responsive grid system for better layouts. The buttons, > >>>>>>>> tables and other bling bling are icing on the cake. > >>>>>>>> - Vue: The core of this technology is to allow binding of your > context > >>>>>>>> model to the DOM so that you don't write oodles of JavaScript and > >>>>>>>> Jquery to create dynamic behavior. It's really old school in 2018 > to > >>>>>>>> keep jumping between many pages to get something done. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Does it not worry anyone else that our service engine still only > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> defines > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> basic map for in/out parameters when the rest of the world is > using > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> likes of swagger and restful APIs? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Of course it worries me, and if you start an initiative I will be > the > >>>>>>>> first to jump in and volunteer. In fact it's on my todo list, and > I > >>>>>>>> was looking at multiple options lately and I'm very attracted to > >>>>>>>> GraphQL for example because of the reduced visits to the backend. > >>>>>>>> However, I don't see this as being related to my proposal here, > I'm > >>>>>>>> just setting my own priorities of what to work on next. What's > wrong > >>>>>>>> with starting _both_ initiatives for that matter? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Nothing is wrong with both, but as you pointed out many > discussions > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> efforts have begun and then floundered. I'm simply offering some > >>>>>>> thoughts > >>>>>>> on where I see the most potential benefit from a large scale > effort. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>> Scott > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018, 06:03 Taher Alkhateeb, < > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Recently, we at Pythys had some interactions with clients, and > the > >>>>>>>>>> user interface proved to be a sour point. It is functioning > well, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> looks too classic, too rigid, too 2000s really :) We had many > >>>>>>>>>> discussion and attempts in the past like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] > [6] [7] > >>>>>>>>>> [8] [9] [10] just to name a few all of which seemed not to > follow > >>>>>>>>>> through. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So what is the problem? Why is this hard to get right? I'm not > sure > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> have the magic answer, but it seems to me like part of the problem > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> simply .. TOO BIG > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So I was thinking about a possible solution, and after some > initial > >>>>>>>>>> research, I think maybe the solution (like everything else) > needs to > >>>>>>>>>> be slow, incremental and evolutionary rather than > revolutionary. So > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> am suggesting the following ideas to try and move forward: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - We include the assets for Bootstrap in the common theme. > Bootstrap > >>>>>>>>>> will give us the Grid system which allows for a responsive > website > >>>>>>>>>> that works on all devices, it will also give us beautiful > widgets to > >>>>>>>>>> work with. > >>>>>>>>>> - We include Vue.js assets in the common theme. Vue.js is an > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> excellent > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> framework for creating Single Page Applications (SPAs) to give > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> dynamic > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> behavior to our pages and create ajax-heavy pages > >>>>>>>>>> - We slowly migrate our old CSS to bootstrap constructs. We can > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> begin > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> for example by replacing our menus, then tables, then headers, then > >>>>>>>>>> buttons etc .. > >>>>>>>>>> - We slowly introduce dynamic screens using controller logic in > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Vue.js > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> - We slowly update our macro library to migrate to the above > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> mentioned > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> libraries and widgets > >>>>>>>>>> - We do all of this live in Trunk, without branching. This means > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> for some period of time, there will be transitional code (a little > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> bit > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> of bootstrap and a little bit of our current code) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We can start with an initial proof of concept skeleton, and if > that > >>>>>>>>>> gets consensus, then we can move forward with a full > implementation > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> trunk. I think this issue is many years over due. Our interface > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> looks > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> oooooooooooooold and really needs a face lift. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? Ideas? Suggestions? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://s.apache.org/rf94 > >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://s.apache.org/g5zr > >>>>>>>>>> [3] https://s.apache.org/XpBO > >>>>>>>>>> [4] https://s.apache.org/YIL1 > >>>>>>>>>> [5] https://s.apache.org/836D > >>>>>>>>>> [6] https://s.apache.org/DhyB > >>>>>>>>>> [7] https://s.apache.org/Lv9E > >>>>>>>>>> [8] https://s.apache.org/zKIo > >>>>>>>>>> [9] https://s.apache.org/D6jx > >>>>>>>>>> [10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5840 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > > > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |