...
[13:43:04 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> eliminate
[13:44:44 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> i'm ok with that. what do other ppl think? anastasiac, michelled: ^
[13:46:11 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> can you say the long name please cindyli?
[13:46:24 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> now i have another long name: prefsEditorFullWithoutPreviewSchema.html
[13:46:27 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> 
[13:46:53 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> the first long name we were talking about was "SeparatedPanelPrefsEditorFrame.html", michelled
[13:47:03 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> What is the meaning of "Full" in that new name, cindyli
[13:47:10 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> full page demo
[13:47:12 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> And perhaps "Without" can be replaced with "No"
[13:47:21 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> nice approach
[13:48:01 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Also, why is there an html file whose name depends on whether there is a Schema or not?
[13:48:02 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> cindyli: i think the builds are working now.. it's really hard to test though, anyways you can merge in my changes.
[13:48:15 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> ok, will do. thanks, Justin_o
[13:48:16 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Couldn't we reuse the html file between the schema and non-schema versions?
[13:48:24 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> It seems as if all the actual markup would have to be the same
[13:48:31 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> Bosmon: it's a manual test
[13:48:37 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> so they have different script blocks
[13:49:13 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Ok
[13:49:19 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Well a cumbersome name is fine for test files
[13:52:01 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> sorry, I was distracted. catching up
[13:52:30 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> one thing: we should be consistent as to whether or not "prefsEditor" goes at the beginning of the name or the end (consistent across fat panel, full page, etc)
[13:53:36 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> so we're trying to decide between "SeparatedPanelPrefsEditor" and "SeparatedPrefsEditor", and we'll have "FullNoPreviewPrefsEditor", etc...
[13:53:50 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> "FullPrefsEditor"
[13:54:29 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> "FullPrefsEditor" looks odd without "page"… full what? It might be mistaken for the fullness of the editing capabilities
[14:05:52 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> cindyli, Bosmon, anastasiac: any idea what to rename the uiOptions directory in the build-scripts to
[14:06:08 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> it contains the resources needed to do the !important injection into the css files used by UIO
[14:07:00 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, if these files are related to what we're now calling the prefs framework, how about "prefsFramework" ?
[14:07:24 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: okay.. thanks
[14:13:07 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> cindyli: maybe we can leave the references in the release notes, those are all for 1.4 anyways.. so we will be re-writing them for 1.5
[14:13:19 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> and technically they are still correct for 1.4
[14:13:24 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> sounds good, Justin_o
[14:16:08 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> cindyli, anastasiac, Bosmon: should the uiOptions component be created using the schema or grades.. or should we have instances for both?
[14:17:20 CDT(-0500)] <clown> jhernandez are you still around?
[14:17:29 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> good question, Justin_o. Given that our goal with the component is to provide an option that requires no modification, it shouldn't matter. But if modification i.e. customization is going to happen, does the choice affect how the customization would/could be done?
[14:17:45 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> e.g. if the grades are used, could I tweak it with a schema option? and vice-versa?
[14:17:55 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: unfortunately they are quite different as it stands
[14:18:20 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> since the schema version will create the enhancer and settings store as well
[14:18:31 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> so if we implement using schemas, customization must be done with schemas, and if we implement with grades, customization must be done with grades?
[14:18:39 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> wait, the grades version won't create enhancer and store??
[14:19:18 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: correct.. there are separate initializations for those when you use grades
[14:19:38 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> and no you couldn't adjust customizations of the grades with a schema
[14:19:54 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> you could go the other way though...
[14:20:11 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: this is because there is a separate tool, the builder, that creates the uio from the schema
[14:20:30 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> I wonder if a grades version of a uiOptions component should create the enhancer and store...
[14:21:12 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: it's a good question.. i guess it depends on what uiOptions is now..
[14:21:14 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> given that you can go the other way, plus the enhancer/store issue, perhaps the uiOptions component should just use the schemas
[14:21:17 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> is it the full stack
[14:21:24 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> and not just the editor interface like it was before
[14:21:28 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> that way, integrators can tweak the schemas, or use grades to customize
[14:22:42 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> right.. so i guess i could move the grades stuff to a new manual test and we'd be back down to a single uiOptions demo
[14:23:29 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> I guess so, yes. I wonder what cindyli, Bosmon think? maybe michelled?
[14:25:52 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> i guess the other issue with the schema version though is there is this component that creates the actual component so it would be strange to try to pass in options and etc. if you are expecting things to be initialized for your right away. meaning are you passing in options to the builder or to the running instance of UIO
[14:26:03 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> I'd like that better. I don't like the two UIO demos - I think it will be confusing for people looking at the demos
[14:27:26 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: i'm wondering if UIO is the stack of prefEditor, store, and enhancer
[14:27:35 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> michelled: and then the builder would create one of these stacks
[14:27:46 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> anastasiac, Bosmon, cindyli: ^ what do you think
[14:30:07 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> I like the idea of our "UIO component" being a bit of a demonstration of what the prefs framework can do, so including the full stack (editor + enhancer + store) makes sense to me
[14:30:50 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> but I'd describe it as "the builder creates a stack" and UIO is a packaged use of the builder to provide the stack with a simpler interface
[14:53:22 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> Justin_o: how do you think to rename "build-scripts/uiOptions" to "build-scripts/preferences"?
[15:04:51 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> cindyli, Bosmon: i was talking in person with michelled and anastasiac. since it is so simple to create a basic UIO with the builder.. we are just going to drop the component entirely and just have the demo instead.
[15:05:13 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> ok