fluid-work IRC Logs-2011-06-14

[08:02:45 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> anastasiac it'd be interesting to try to put the full w/ preview in a slide down panel
[08:03:16 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> might be good demo since that's how what had it working before as a demo... i think
[08:03:34 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> heidi, do you mean basically adding a preview to the fat-panel?
[08:03:49 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> anastasiac nope putting the full w/ preview version into a sliding panel
[08:04:22 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> so it wouldn't actually be 'full' since 'full' refers to full-page? you mean no tabs + preview?
[08:04:28 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> hm...
[08:04:35 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> interesting
[08:04:56 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> anastasiac the full with preview version but having that open in a panel. that's sorta how we had it before
[08:05:14 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> heidi, I can have a look at implementing that
[08:05:33 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> I've been learning lots about IoC so far, so it's a good exercise
[08:05:42 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> and yeah the 'full' part wouldn't be happening anymore... which is interesting to think re: our naming
[08:06:04 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> anastasiac just a suggestion - i think if i wanted UIO on my page i might go for that method
[08:07:27 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> tho full w/ preview is very tall now. maybe it'd be weird in a panel.... would have to tweak styles
[08:13:26 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung i'm working on jameswy's list for full w and w/o preview if you want to go ahead and tweak fat panel panels after tabs
[08:13:55 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi_: okay.
[08:14:21 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung i've told jameswy that fat panel can be reviewed, just not b/y themes yet
[08:14:46 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi_: sure. Can you push your slider fixes?
[08:15:43 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung i think if you merge in my 4230 you'll get them
[08:15:53 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> they were fixed in 4228 or 4229
[08:16:00 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> ah okay
[08:18:43 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi_: Ah. I meant the fixes for the slider disappearing in the tabs when theme is changed.
[08:21:50 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung does 4230 merge not give it to you? i might not've pushed cos i was waiting for yr css to be done. but it was an easy fix if you want to do it - just set background: none before setting bg colour in UIOptions.css.
[08:21:59 CDT(-0500)]

[08:25:34 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi_ merging now...
[08:26:42 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi_ merged. Sliders are good now. Thanks.
[08:31:05 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung cool
[08:41:59 CDT(-0500)] <huslage> morning
[09:35:17 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> heidi, I'm just starting on a your idea of a full-with-preview in a panel. Interesting exercise. The css is certainly going to need some tweaks - the panel and main content are mixing quite thoroughly!
[09:35:33 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> anastasiac oh awesome!
[09:35:40 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> yeah full w/ preview is quite tall now
[09:36:06 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jameswy we're talking abut putting the "full w preview" version into a sliding panel, for a demo... i think ppl might want to do this.
[09:36:18 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> interesting implications on the naming tho since full implies full page
[09:36:45 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> Wow.
[09:37:00 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jameswy the reason i thought of it was cos it's how it worked before
[09:38:20 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> That's only partly true, . It was originally a full page deal too, but some months ago in a phasing transition period for UIO, I recommended it be put into a sliding panel.
[09:38:20 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> heidi, the two 'columns' in the full-with-preview template are accomplished using force-left and force-right, so what happens is that the original page ends up squished between the two halves of the uiOptions panel
[09:38:48 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> oh bizarre
[09:39:15 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> The original UIO wasn't intended to be put into an on-page sliding panel, but it made its way there in a half-way effort to get to where we're at now.
[09:39:32 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> heidi, I'm going to see if fl-push or fl-fix could help
[09:39:35 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> I'm not sure we need to cover the case of "full page UIO" as a sliding panel.
[09:39:47 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jameswy i could see full w preview in a sliding panel being desirable tho - no?
[09:40:12 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jameswy no we don't, just a demo for fun... i feel like personally i might prefer that implementation!
[09:40:12 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> heidi: any particular reason why?
[09:40:20 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> anastasiac try fl-clearfix
[09:40:49 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> heidi, beautiful! that's the new one, right?
[09:41:35 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jameswy i think i really like the click save option, and the not affecting my content till i'm ready thing
[09:41:55 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> and i like the preview for learning how the controls work... like a small work space for that
[09:42:00 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> are fl-fix and fl-push going to be deprecated?
[09:42:43 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> anastasiac yep new one. fl-fix will stay because it's the better one in some rare cases. fl-push is good for just a straight clear
[09:42:54 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> k
[09:42:59 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> heidi: Interesting. Maybe we can consider this for a different configuration of UIO. In the meantime though, full w/ preview in its current form is unwieldly for an on-page slider.
[09:43:11 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> I think it brings more problems than it solves because of its size.
[09:43:33 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> e.g., where did my content go to? – it's no longer on the screen.
[09:44:02 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jameswy agreed. i just suggested it to anastasiac to see if it'd work... cos it should. but yeah not ideal
[09:44:33 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> heidi, yeah, it's weird in the current code-base, since the entire page (panel and all) is already a live preview, so having a preview pane seems odd
[09:44:35 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jameswy i just thought maybe ppl would want it work 'like before' sorta kinda. i dunno
[09:44:36 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> playing
[09:45:03 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> anastasiac i imagine you'd turn live preview off and use the reg preview
[09:45:13 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> yeah, I'm looking into that now
[09:47:11 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> heidi: The 'like before' was a bit of a flawed model--the corrected models are the latest configurations; but we can certainly explore other configurations that have mini-previews built into the panel.
[09:47:47 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jameswy i hear ya. just making sure if ppl want to play, they can
[10:07:05 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: I've pushed out changes for yb and by themes.
[10:07:16 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: do you want me to look at fixing the tab content areas too?
[10:07:23 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung great - yes please
[10:07:32 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: k.
[10:07:36 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> get fat panel smokin' so jameswy can fully review asap
[10:07:55 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> thanks jhung !
[10:07:59 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: okely dokely
[10:08:03 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> Thanks guys
[10:20:37 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: what style do I modify to change the appearance of the Slider bar?
[10:20:58 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung not sure what you mean
[10:21:47 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> The horizontal slider bar is the disappears when changing to YB and BY theme. I want to change it so it shows up.
[10:21:53 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> ^heidi
[10:21:58 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung scroll up to 9.21am
[10:22:58 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: weird. I have that fix merged. Works for bw and wb, but not yb and by.
[10:23:11 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung because i prob didn't add to those themes yet?
[10:23:16 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> k.
[10:23:34 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: I'll take a look at your fix and duplicate
[11:24:58 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Hey heidi, is this CSS gradient editor cool? http://www.colorzilla.com/gradient-editor/
[11:25:22 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> woah, looking
[11:26:31 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> colinclark i recognise -webkit-linear-gradient as normal, not sure about that microsoft filter stuff, but yeah i'm sure it's fine
[11:27:38 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Looks like it's there to support IE6+
[11:27:43 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> which is really pretty remarkable
[11:27:52 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I quite like this
[11:28:25 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> They also have a feature to convert from an image gradient to CSS, just by uploading the image
[11:29:59 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> colinclark pretty neat. jameswy check it out
[11:30:49 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> Sweet
[11:46:23 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> heidi-, in case you're curious, I've pushed a 'panelFullPreview' demo to my instructionalDemos branch. Not well styled, yet, but mostly functional.
[11:46:45 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> anastasiac cool - thanks for trying that out. good to know it's possible
[12:22:45 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> michelled: i've sent a pull request https://github.com/fluid-project/infusion/pull/76 for 4234. can you or someone else take a look. moreover, when u have time, can we chat about the wrapper issue and/or the template prefix issue that i will be working on next?
[12:45:31 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: do you want me to put in the icons for blackYellow?
[12:45:38 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung sounds good
[12:45:40 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> k
[12:59:10 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi, jameswy: about to push out last changes to fat panel styling.
[12:59:22 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung perfect
[12:59:59 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung workin on james's list - let me know when you have time to help me with a couple stumpers
[12:59:59 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> I'll still need to create new 16x16 icons for the fat panel, but jameswy can look at it now.
[13:00:10 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> cool
[13:00:20 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: k.
[13:08:06 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi, jameswy: pushed out.
[13:08:24 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> jhung: Awesome, thanks! Remind me what branch it is?
[13:08:36 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> FLUID-4230 in my repo
[13:08:39 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> jameswy
[13:09:29 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> Thanks. Will be working through it later this afternoon.
[13:11:08 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> jameswy: I was going to make 16x16 icons for the fatpanel, but I'm going to hold off in case there are other icon related issues to fix.
[13:11:40 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: I can help you with those stumpers.
[13:12:27 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung k, the focus on the slider handle when using w mouse
[13:12:43 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> i tried a:focus and ui-widget-focus or whatever... setting both to border:0px but no luck
[13:13:11 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: you mean the dotted line?
[13:13:30 CDT(-0500)] * jhung checking jameswy's email now...
[13:13:30 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung ya or blue in safari - is that something we can control?
[13:14:15 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: okay. I'll take a look at this.
[13:19:43 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung ack, i think it's outline, not border
[13:22:23 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung okay so i fixed it - next one is the weird scroll issue james mentioned w/ text size slider
[13:23:30 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> when the text size gets large, the preview window gets a scrollbar, but then the arrow right button scrolls the slider, then the preview window
[13:24:19 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: k
[13:30:15 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: hmmm. I don't see anything odd if using the keyboard to adjust the slider. The preview window behaves properly.
[13:30:34 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung yes it does
[13:30:46 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> but then when you get to the end, when the text size is big enough to cause preview scrollbars
[13:30:52 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> it starts to move the preview window
[13:31:41 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung i'm having trouble replicating, but i did before... hm
[13:32:13 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jameswy are you still able to see the preview moving w/ arrow key on slider?
[13:41:54 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: what else?
[13:42:43 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung that's it for stumpers. want to do this one? "Make inputs larger" - Double the dimensions of the checkboxes
[13:43:17 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: k.
[13:46:11 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung i'm just pushed full w preview style tweaks (4228) but working on "simplified layout" for both full versions - so ugly right now
[13:46:18 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> how's simplified layout for fat panel?
[13:46:27 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> oh i don't think it's supposed to apply to fat panel
[13:47:39 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> colinclark: did you say there was an example in the uploader of a component returning a different type then itself?
[13:48:21 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> hmm
[13:48:27 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> well, yes
[13:48:31 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> sort of
[13:48:34 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> If you call fluid.uploader()
[13:48:42 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> you get back one of two potential other things
[13:48:48 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> a fluid.uploader.multiFileUploader
[13:49:03 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> or potentially, if your browser sort of sucks, you get a fluid.uplodaer.singleFileUploader
[13:49:19 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> through some slightly convoluted IoC machinery
[13:49:40 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> What are you interested in, in particular, michelled?
[13:50:03 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> colinclark: cindyli is looking at the UIO wrapper issue and was hoping there was an example
[13:50:19 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> ah
[13:50:19 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> I think trying to use fancy grade names is also an option
[13:50:32 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Well I'm not sure the Uploader is necessarily the best example
[13:50:44 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> but it's there
[13:50:52 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Reorderer has a pre-IoC example of it
[13:50:57 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: I'll merge your changes. Which branch?
[13:51:09 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung 4228
[13:51:10 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> but I expect that, largely, the behaviour is comparable
[13:51:41 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: it seems styling checkboxes is really ugly. Works inconsistently across browsers.
[13:51:47 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> thx colinclark
[13:54:14 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> michelled: colinclark, i'm still wondering what's the advantage to have fluid.fatPanelUIOptions == fluid.uiOptions + its own options, rather than fluid.fatPanelUIOptions contains fluid.uiOptions as a sub-component + other sub-components.
[13:54:51 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> There are quite a few advantages
[13:55:06 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> not the least of which are much easier configurability, I think
[13:55:28 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> not to mention the fact that fluid.fatPanelUIOptions isn't, strictly speaking, a thing
[13:55:48 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> The Reorderer is still a nice analogy
[13:56:18 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> On a basic level, I think when a user asks for a kind of UI Options, that the thing returned to them behaves as a UI Options
[13:57:02 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung yeaah, i figured. not sure how to do that unless we can have an image or something??
[13:57:24 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> when you make the checkbox big the resolution is terrible for the check
[13:59:27 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> ok, thx, colinclark.
[14:00:38 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: yeah.
[14:01:18 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi: actually, there's a way to get checkbox resizing somewhat working in firefox, but parts of the style resets when it becomes checked. Really wacky.
[14:01:44 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> jhung any way to do some background image thing? not sure..
[14:03:09 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> cindyli: did you run the UIOptions tests in chrome, safari and ie?
[14:03:21 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> yes, michelled
[14:03:24 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> problem?
[14:03:33 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> all on windows, tho
[14:03:45 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> no problem - I just didn't run them everywhere so I wanted to make sure that you had
[14:03:56 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> great, i did
[14:08:25 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> cindyli: it's in the project repo now
[14:08:37 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> thanks, michelled!
[14:08:42 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> np
[14:10:08 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> michelled: You don't like Chrome?
[14:10:36 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> colinclark: why are the failing in chrome?
[14:10:45 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> no
[14:10:56 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I just wondered why you singled it out
[14:11:06 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> poor chrome
[14:11:12 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> so fast
[14:11:15 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> oh, the JIRA was that the tests were failing in chrome, safari and ie
[14:11:16 CDT(-0500)] <michelled>
[14:11:24 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> I only ran the tests in safari and FF
[14:11:30 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> because I'm lazy
[14:11:50 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> not because you don't like chrome
[14:12:00 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> no
[14:12:54 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> cindyli - I was explaining the goal of making sure that all configurations of UIOptions are configurable with the standard UIOptions set at top level to Justin_o and mlam in our chat this morning
[14:13:22 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> ha, Bosmon4, great to see u
[14:17:01 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> anastasiac: your pull request is in the repo
[14:17:20 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> yes, I just saw that michelled, thanks
[14:17:45 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> Bosmon4, in order to do so, is there a way in IoC to return fluid.uiOptions when fluid.fatPanelUIOptions gets called
[14:17:48 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> np
[14:18:24 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> cindyli - I told the gang to ignore the issue of the returned object for now...
[14:18:25 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> Bosmon4, michelled's suggestion sounds good by using gradeName "fluid.uiOptions"
[14:18:38 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> ok, probably i should talk to them first
[14:18:41 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> How would that help?
[14:19:13 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> Bosmon4: wouldn't the returned object then look like a uiOptions?
[14:19:20 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> michelled - not much like one, no
[14:19:22 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> and quack like one too?
[14:19:34 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Yes, you should talk to them, I had assumed they were the only group working on fatPanel
[14:19:48 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Aren't you looking at the template prefix issue right now?
[14:20:03 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> oh, looking at the wrapper issue now
[14:20:12 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Ah, I see
[14:20:21 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> In that case you guys will be treading on each other's toes
[14:20:22 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> maybe i should switch to prefix issue to avoid the conflict with them
[14:20:27 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Since their main issue is to create a wrapper too
[14:21:12 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> ok, ic. now i'm switching to prefix issue is that ok, michelled
[14:21:13 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Justin_o and mlam ^
[14:21:28 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Can you loop us into your awesome work, dudes?
[14:21:29 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> yes, that would be great cindyli
[14:21:37 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> perfect
[14:21:45 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> It's more important I think to focus on the INPUT side of the equation - that is, to make sure all the configurations can be configured like a UIOptions
[14:21:47 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> colinclark: it's not quite awesome yet
[14:21:57 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Justin_o:
[14:21:57 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Rather than to worry too much about the OUTPUT stage - that is, exactly what is returned from the creator function
[14:22:08 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> If we have done our job well, the user will not need to interact with the output object in any case
[14:22:29 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> That's a somewhat strange sort of comment, it seems, Bosmon4
[14:22:42 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?
[14:22:52 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> colinclark: the basic premise will be to take top level options in the wrapper and then underneath split them apart
[14:22:59 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> But I think it would be hard to avoid having these creator functions returning something "composite" ... at least, if we don't want them to "lose information"
[14:23:28 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> colinclark - our job is done when all useful interaction with a component could be achieved through declarative configuration up front
[14:23:42 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> If the user needs to "tinker" with a component after the fact, then I think this is a sign there is a problem
[14:23:47 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> sounds like a magical world
[14:23:55 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Are you being sarcastic?
[14:23:59 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> What about, umm, methods, Bosmon4?
[14:24:04 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> "I don't even know anymore"
[14:24:07 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Well, what about them - what should they do?
[14:24:17 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> We never really liked methods...
[14:24:18 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> "we"
[14:24:29 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> What methods does UIOptions expose that users might be interested in?
[14:25:19 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Well, I think it's typical that components have methods that represent the programmatic equivalent of what users might do by clicking
[14:25:35 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> In some cases, these may be events
[14:25:50 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> but I hardly see an argument yet for a world without methods
[14:26:24 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> I don't actually see any methods of this kind on UIOptions in particular....
[14:26:45 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I haven't updated recently
[14:26:58 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> but I see things like "Reset" and "Save" and other comparable things
[14:27:07 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> I mean, I didn't suggest the issue should be ignored completely
[14:27:16 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Certainly in other components this is regularly the case
[14:27:22 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> But just that it was much more important to focus on the configuration end of this problem for now
[14:27:29 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> aha
[14:27:32 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark>
[14:28:03 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> It seems to me that methods have a certain trajectory...
[14:28:15 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> we started by ensuring they were there, as opposed to buried inside event listeners
[14:28:25 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> proceeded to break them up more and more
[14:28:33 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> so that typically components may only have a few
[14:28:40 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> replaced them in other cases with events
[14:28:49 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> or free functions
[14:29:05 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> and now we're faced with bridging the gap between a component method and a free function in terms of how dependency is managed
[14:29:25 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> but I can't see a trajectory that will ultimately lead to an abandonment of methods
[14:29:26 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark>
[14:29:39 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> but, that's a huge tangent
[14:29:55 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> Bosmon4: did you want to take a peak at mlam's and my work so far
[14:30:01 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Justin_o: Do you concur that cindyli should move on to other things, because you and mlam are covering the issue of wrappers and flavours?
[14:30:33 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> Bosmon4: https://github.com/jobara/infusion/blob/FLUID-3761/src/webapp/components/uiOptions/js/FatPanelUIOptions.js
[14:31:12 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> colinclark: i guess if cindyli has other things to do, sure... i'm not sure our solution will be the same as the general one or not.. it might be similar
[14:31:37 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Let's assume for now, anyway, that you guys are holding the Frog on this particular issue
[14:31:49 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> if that makes sense to you
[14:32:19 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> Justin_o: sure, start working on prefix issue
[14:32:35 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> colinclark: okay... where is the frog anyways, did it migrate to OCAD too?
[14:33:02 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I forget where the frog went, exactly
[14:33:07 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> but it will always be in our hearts
[14:33:25 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> I must try to bring replacement FROGGG with me from somewhere
[14:33:52 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Perhaps Githens has one
[14:35:24 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> Bosmon4: can you bring a penguin and a fish too...
[14:35:39 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> I'm certainly bringing a Penguin
[14:35:49 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> And a cat!
[14:35:54 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4>
[14:36:07 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Well, a CATTT should stay at home... he seems to be very depressed from all reports
[14:37:47 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> colinclark, cindyli, mlam, Justin_o - I guess the issue of exactly what one of these "composite creator functions" should actually RETURN is a little vexed... but I think it is not so urgent as our other issues
[14:38:04 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Certainly in the case of the "fat panel" UIOptions I think it would be very hard for it to directly return a UIOptions component
[14:38:18 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> why is that, Bosmon4?
[14:38:24 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Since the only "UIOptions component proper" which is ever created is one which lives in the "other world"
[14:38:36 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> ah
[14:38:40 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> eek
[14:39:01 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> We could return JUST that, but firstly i) this would destroy information, since all the other things created would be lost, and ii) it would be a slightly hazardous thing for users to intract with directly
[14:40:16 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> what are "the other things created," Bosmon?
[14:40:31 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Justin_o: This conversation, for the record, confirms to me that you and mlam have frogged this entire issue
[14:40:46 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> since the scope of what you're doing is just so gigantic to the nature of the component
[14:41:20 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> colinclark - there are 3 things at top level in fat panel, I think
[14:41:25 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> colinclark: okay... we'll keep the frog with us then
[14:41:37 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> A "slidingPanel", a "livePreview" and a "markupRenderer"
[14:41:42 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Justin_o: In your hearts
[14:41:43 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark>
[14:41:45 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> And then the rest consists of the "gateway to the magic world"
[14:41:58 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> colinclark:
[14:42:03 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> The 3 things I mentioned are created in "this world"
[14:42:16 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> the livePreview, the slidingPanel, and the markupRenderer
[14:42:21 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Yes, those
[14:42:22 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I can picture the first two
[14:42:25 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> What is a markupRenderer?
[14:42:32 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> The last one is actually responsible for creating the markup for the iframe
[14:42:39 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> ah, interesting
[14:42:50 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> magicWorldGatewayMarkupRenderer
[14:45:50 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> colinclark: wormholeGenerator
[14:46:14 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Too bad michelled wasn't at her keyboard to crack Star Trek jokes
[14:46:40 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> I think this would have looked good beside our DS9 logo
[14:47:06 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark>
[14:50:07 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> Bosmon4, in terms of the prefix issue, our intention is to have a "templatePrefix" option in fluid.uiOptions whose value is the relative path from the html to the template directory. In the case that the implementor needs to provide one or two of his own template from his own directory, do u think our current way is still acceptable: https://github.com/cindyli/infusion/blob/master/src/webapp/demos/uiOptions/FatPanelUIOptions/html/uiOptions.html#L84-94
[14:50:40 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi, jameswy: I'm about to push out a change to the icons for UI options.
[14:50:50 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> k
[14:50:52 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> Thanks.
[14:50:59 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> cindyli - I think those default values should INCLUDE the position of the prefix
[14:51:28 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Using the kind of syntax we use for stringTemplate - e.g. %prefix/components/uioptions etc...
[14:54:23 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> understand. that's the way to join the prefix with the default template name. but should we take care of the both cases: 1. with prefix, 2. individual templates that some are from infusion components template dir and some are from the user's own dir?
[14:55:02 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> cindyli - the overrider with the demands block can choose either to supply the prefix in his override, or not
[14:55:15 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> In the latter case, he gets the ability to load the template from his own dir
[14:55:19 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi, jameswy: I just tested my icon changes with the full panel versions and it's not perfect.
[14:55:44 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi, jameswy: so I'm going to hold back until I had a chance to tweak this.
[14:55:52 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> np
[14:55:53 CDT(-0500)] <jameswy> Ok.
[14:59:22 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> Bosmon4, so prefix takes higher priority, if it's not provided, templateLoader comes into action, right?
[14:59:29 CDT(-0500)] * michelled is sad to have missed star trek conversations
[14:59:41 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> heidi, jameswy: I'm heading out. I'll get these icons fixed tonight / morning.
[14:59:51 CDT(-0500)] <heidi> k
[14:59:58 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> cindyli - I assumed that the two of them would work together
[15:00:07 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> In that the prefix is one of the pieces of configuration supplied to the templateLoader
[15:04:10 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> ya, make sense and make things easier. thanks, Bosmon4
[15:04:30 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon4> Cheers, cindyli
[15:04:48 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> cheers :-D