You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@roller.apache.org by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> on 2014/01/12 02:05:26 UTC
Remove multi-level bookmarks?
Hi team, once Gaurav's patch removing blog subcategories is in place,
and the simplifications this switch incurs realized, I'd like us to do
the same with our blogroll page--namely, remove sub-bookmarks (bookmark
folders) and incorporate blogitem ordering in its place. I imagine the
blogroll page will look closely similar to the (upcoming) category page
-- a straight list of top-level blogroll items and up-and-down arrows of
some sort to facilitate ordering of them. As part of this switch, we'll
be pulling out the "Import bookmarks via OPML" option, as few use OPML
and its value is greatly shrunk once we move from a tree to a list for
blogroll items. This change will also result in the bookmark table
being simplified from a hierarchical to a flat structure (i.e., no more
parent bookmark column), just as is being done with categories.
The blogroll page is primarily for novice and intermediate bloggers and
nearly all of them would be fine with a single-list of blogroll items,
as indeed virtually all blogrolls are formatted as lists anyway. The
handful of more advanced users looking into maintaining a tree of
blogroll links can still accomplish that via template modifications
(manually adding the HTML links into the side-column template), an
approach many would be taking even if trees continue to be supported in
the blogroll page. (I never use the blogroll page myself, I just
manually configure my blogroll links in the side column template anyway
along with the formatting I desire.) So I think this change will nicely
tighten up and further simplify the Roller code and UI, helping increase
its adoption, while not preventing blogroll trees for the relative few
wanting them.
WDYT?
Regards,
Glen
Re: Remove multi-level bookmarks?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dave and others, I didn't realize that we are already using the table
structure that would support (B) below: separate [bookmark-]folder and
bookmark tables. So unless I hear any objections from the team I will
go ahead and move us from (C) to (B), namely prohibit bookmark folders
from themselves containing bookmark folders (basically, remove the path
and parentid columns from the folder table and make all bookmark folders
top-level.) From my experience in getting rid of subcategories this will
considerably simplify the Roller code in this area.
Also, for bookmarks I would like to get rid of the unimplemented
"priority" column and replace it with the "position" column added to the
Category table (same meaning, a 0-based location of the blogroll item in
its list.) Further, the bookmark "weight" column used to change the
class used to generate the link item, as used in weblog.vm:
<a href="$bookmark.url"
title="$bookmark.description"
class="rBookmark$bookmark.weight">$bookmark.name</a>
...is arguably overkill and a rare need. (I suspect we could refer such
users needing this to doing template modifications instead.) I wonder if
it would be better to simplify the bookmark management UI and bookmark
table by removing this "weight" option? But either way is fine for me.
Regards,
Glen
On 01/12/2014 04:36 PM, Glen Mazza wrote:
> OK, a design which allows for named bookmark categories/folders while
> not allowing subfolders underneath them would be acceptable. I.e., a
> user creates three categories of bookmarks: Sports, Travel, News, with
> several links underneath each, but no need for additional
> subcategories under those top-level categories.
>
> So, my suggestion, vetoed by you, is (A):
>
> --- nhl.com
> --- nba.com
> --- nfl.com
> --- visit Florida
> --- visit Las Vegas
> --- visit Hawaii
>
> You would accept this instead:
>
> Sports
> --- nhl.com
> --- nba.com
> --- nfl.com
>
> Travel
> --- visit Florida
> --- visit Las Vegas
> --- visit Hawaii
>
> What we currently have is C:
>
> Sports
> --- general sports link #1
> --- general sports link #2
> Football
> --- football link #1
> --- football link #2
> College Football
> --- college football link #1
> --- college football link #2
> Basketball
> --- basketball link #1
> --- basketball link #2
> Travel
> North America
> --- Las Vegas travel!
> --- California travel!
> South America
> --- Argentina travel!
>
> So you would accept an architectural change from from (C) to (B) but
> not (C) to (A). I agree that (B) is better than (C), but (B) to be
> done right, should probably use two tables instead of one (bookmark
> and bookmark-category). While (C) should probably be reimplemented as
> (B), there's not much of a difference between the two for me to put in
> the effort; so I think I'll pass on this for the time being and look
> at other issues instead. While (B) looks nicer than (A), I just would
> never use the Bookmarks page personally to implement (B), again, I
> just directly modify the template and add/maintain my links there
> directly in however many different groups I want.
>
> Thanks,
> Glen
>
> On 01/12/2014 03:06 PM, Dave wrote:
>> -1 to removing the ability to group bookmarks. I think it's very
>> useful to
>> be able to have named groups of links. I rely on that feature in several
>> themes that I have developed.
>>
>> I think we need a way to group bookmarks in "folders" but we do not need
>> the ability to have sub-folders, i.e. folders within folders.
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi team, once Gaurav's patch removing blog subcategories is in
>>> place, and
>>> the simplifications this switch incurs realized, I'd like us to do
>>> the same
>>> with our blogroll page--namely, remove sub-bookmarks (bookmark
>>> folders) and
>>> incorporate blogitem ordering in its place. I imagine the blogroll
>>> page
>>> will look closely similar to the (upcoming) category page -- a straight
>>> list of top-level blogroll items and up-and-down arrows of some sort to
>>> facilitate ordering of them. As part of this switch, we'll be
>>> pulling out
>>> the "Import bookmarks via OPML" option, as few use OPML and its
>>> value is
>>> greatly shrunk once we move from a tree to a list for blogroll
>>> items. This
>>> change will also result in the bookmark table being simplified from a
>>> hierarchical to a flat structure (i.e., no more parent bookmark
>>> column),
>>> just as is being done with categories.
>>>
>>> The blogroll page is primarily for novice and intermediate bloggers and
>>> nearly all of them would be fine with a single-list of blogroll
>>> items, as
>>> indeed virtually all blogrolls are formatted as lists anyway. The
>>> handful
>>> of more advanced users looking into maintaining a tree of blogroll
>>> links
>>> can still accomplish that via template modifications (manually
>>> adding the
>>> HTML links into the side-column template), an approach many would be
>>> taking
>>> even if trees continue to be supported in the blogroll page. (I
>>> never use
>>> the blogroll page myself, I just manually configure my blogroll
>>> links in
>>> the side column template anyway along with the formatting I
>>> desire.) So I
>>> think this change will nicely tighten up and further simplify the
>>> Roller
>>> code and UI, helping increase its adoption, while not preventing
>>> blogroll
>>> trees for the relative few wanting them.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Glen
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Remove multi-level bookmarks?
Posted by Dave <sn...@gmail.com>.
Thanks. That is a good example and it explains the alternatives well.
My concern is requiring people to "just directly modify the template"
because on some sites users are not allowed to edit the templates (e.g.
blogs.apache.org). Without the bookmark folder (or some other grouping
concept) the "allow blog Authors to add new links to multiple bookmarks
lists" cannot be supported when template edits are turned off. (I actually
need this use case to support one of my blogs.)
- Dave
- Dave
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, a design which allows for named bookmark categories/folders while not
> allowing subfolders underneath them would be acceptable. I.e., a user
> creates three categories of bookmarks: Sports, Travel, News, with several
> links underneath each, but no need for additional subcategories under those
> top-level categories.
>
> So, my suggestion, vetoed by you, is (A):
>
> --- nhl.com
> --- nba.com
> --- nfl.com
> --- visit Florida
> --- visit Las Vegas
> --- visit Hawaii
>
> You would accept this instead:
>
> Sports
> --- nhl.com
> --- nba.com
> --- nfl.com
>
> Travel
> --- visit Florida
> --- visit Las Vegas
> --- visit Hawaii
>
> What we currently have is C:
>
> Sports
> --- general sports link #1
> --- general sports link #2
> Football
> --- football link #1
> --- football link #2
> College Football
> --- college football link #1
> --- college football link #2
> Basketball
> --- basketball link #1
> --- basketball link #2
> Travel
> North America
> --- Las Vegas travel!
> --- California travel!
> South America
> --- Argentina travel!
>
> So you would accept an architectural change from from (C) to (B) but not
> (C) to (A). I agree that (B) is better than (C), but (B) to be done right,
> should probably use two tables instead of one (bookmark and
> bookmark-category). While (C) should probably be reimplemented as (B),
> there's not much of a difference between the two for me to put in the
> effort; so I think I'll pass on this for the time being and look at other
> issues instead. While (B) looks nicer than (A), I just would never use the
> Bookmarks page personally to implement (B), again, I just directly modify
> the template and add/maintain my links there directly in however many
> different groups I want.
>
> Thanks,
> Glen
>
>
> On 01/12/2014 03:06 PM, Dave wrote:
>
>> -1 to removing the ability to group bookmarks. I think it's very useful
>> to
>> be able to have named groups of links. I rely on that feature in several
>> themes that I have developed.
>>
>> I think we need a way to group bookmarks in "folders" but we do not need
>> the ability to have sub-folders, i.e. folders within folders.
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi team, once Gaurav's patch removing blog subcategories is in place, and
>>> the simplifications this switch incurs realized, I'd like us to do the
>>> same
>>> with our blogroll page--namely, remove sub-bookmarks (bookmark folders)
>>> and
>>> incorporate blogitem ordering in its place. I imagine the blogroll page
>>> will look closely similar to the (upcoming) category page -- a straight
>>> list of top-level blogroll items and up-and-down arrows of some sort to
>>> facilitate ordering of them. As part of this switch, we'll be pulling
>>> out
>>> the "Import bookmarks via OPML" option, as few use OPML and its value is
>>> greatly shrunk once we move from a tree to a list for blogroll items.
>>> This
>>> change will also result in the bookmark table being simplified from a
>>> hierarchical to a flat structure (i.e., no more parent bookmark column),
>>> just as is being done with categories.
>>>
>>> The blogroll page is primarily for novice and intermediate bloggers and
>>> nearly all of them would be fine with a single-list of blogroll items, as
>>> indeed virtually all blogrolls are formatted as lists anyway. The
>>> handful
>>> of more advanced users looking into maintaining a tree of blogroll links
>>> can still accomplish that via template modifications (manually adding the
>>> HTML links into the side-column template), an approach many would be
>>> taking
>>> even if trees continue to be supported in the blogroll page. (I never use
>>> the blogroll page myself, I just manually configure my blogroll links in
>>> the side column template anyway along with the formatting I desire.) So
>>> I
>>> think this change will nicely tighten up and further simplify the Roller
>>> code and UI, helping increase its adoption, while not preventing blogroll
>>> trees for the relative few wanting them.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Glen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Remove multi-level bookmarks?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
OK, a design which allows for named bookmark categories/folders while
not allowing subfolders underneath them would be acceptable. I.e., a
user creates three categories of bookmarks: Sports, Travel, News, with
several links underneath each, but no need for additional subcategories
under those top-level categories.
So, my suggestion, vetoed by you, is (A):
--- nhl.com
--- nba.com
--- nfl.com
--- visit Florida
--- visit Las Vegas
--- visit Hawaii
You would accept this instead:
Sports
--- nhl.com
--- nba.com
--- nfl.com
Travel
--- visit Florida
--- visit Las Vegas
--- visit Hawaii
What we currently have is C:
Sports
--- general sports link #1
--- general sports link #2
Football
--- football link #1
--- football link #2
College Football
--- college football link #1
--- college football link #2
Basketball
--- basketball link #1
--- basketball link #2
Travel
North America
--- Las Vegas travel!
--- California travel!
South America
--- Argentina travel!
So you would accept an architectural change from from (C) to (B) but not
(C) to (A). I agree that (B) is better than (C), but (B) to be done
right, should probably use two tables instead of one (bookmark and
bookmark-category). While (C) should probably be reimplemented as (B),
there's not much of a difference between the two for me to put in the
effort; so I think I'll pass on this for the time being and look at
other issues instead. While (B) looks nicer than (A), I just would
never use the Bookmarks page personally to implement (B), again, I just
directly modify the template and add/maintain my links there directly in
however many different groups I want.
Thanks,
Glen
On 01/12/2014 03:06 PM, Dave wrote:
> -1 to removing the ability to group bookmarks. I think it's very useful to
> be able to have named groups of links. I rely on that feature in several
> themes that I have developed.
>
> I think we need a way to group bookmarks in "folders" but we do not need
> the ability to have sub-folders, i.e. folders within folders.
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi team, once Gaurav's patch removing blog subcategories is in place, and
>> the simplifications this switch incurs realized, I'd like us to do the same
>> with our blogroll page--namely, remove sub-bookmarks (bookmark folders) and
>> incorporate blogitem ordering in its place. I imagine the blogroll page
>> will look closely similar to the (upcoming) category page -- a straight
>> list of top-level blogroll items and up-and-down arrows of some sort to
>> facilitate ordering of them. As part of this switch, we'll be pulling out
>> the "Import bookmarks via OPML" option, as few use OPML and its value is
>> greatly shrunk once we move from a tree to a list for blogroll items. This
>> change will also result in the bookmark table being simplified from a
>> hierarchical to a flat structure (i.e., no more parent bookmark column),
>> just as is being done with categories.
>>
>> The blogroll page is primarily for novice and intermediate bloggers and
>> nearly all of them would be fine with a single-list of blogroll items, as
>> indeed virtually all blogrolls are formatted as lists anyway. The handful
>> of more advanced users looking into maintaining a tree of blogroll links
>> can still accomplish that via template modifications (manually adding the
>> HTML links into the side-column template), an approach many would be taking
>> even if trees continue to be supported in the blogroll page. (I never use
>> the blogroll page myself, I just manually configure my blogroll links in
>> the side column template anyway along with the formatting I desire.) So I
>> think this change will nicely tighten up and further simplify the Roller
>> code and UI, helping increase its adoption, while not preventing blogroll
>> trees for the relative few wanting them.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Glen
>>
>>
Re: Remove multi-level bookmarks?
Posted by Dave <sn...@gmail.com>.
-1 to removing the ability to group bookmarks. I think it's very useful to
be able to have named groups of links. I rely on that feature in several
themes that I have developed.
I think we need a way to group bookmarks in "folders" but we do not need
the ability to have sub-folders, i.e. folders within folders.
- Dave
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi team, once Gaurav's patch removing blog subcategories is in place, and
> the simplifications this switch incurs realized, I'd like us to do the same
> with our blogroll page--namely, remove sub-bookmarks (bookmark folders) and
> incorporate blogitem ordering in its place. I imagine the blogroll page
> will look closely similar to the (upcoming) category page -- a straight
> list of top-level blogroll items and up-and-down arrows of some sort to
> facilitate ordering of them. As part of this switch, we'll be pulling out
> the "Import bookmarks via OPML" option, as few use OPML and its value is
> greatly shrunk once we move from a tree to a list for blogroll items. This
> change will also result in the bookmark table being simplified from a
> hierarchical to a flat structure (i.e., no more parent bookmark column),
> just as is being done with categories.
>
> The blogroll page is primarily for novice and intermediate bloggers and
> nearly all of them would be fine with a single-list of blogroll items, as
> indeed virtually all blogrolls are formatted as lists anyway. The handful
> of more advanced users looking into maintaining a tree of blogroll links
> can still accomplish that via template modifications (manually adding the
> HTML links into the side-column template), an approach many would be taking
> even if trees continue to be supported in the blogroll page. (I never use
> the blogroll page myself, I just manually configure my blogroll links in
> the side column template anyway along with the formatting I desire.) So I
> think this change will nicely tighten up and further simplify the Roller
> code and UI, helping increase its adoption, while not preventing blogroll
> trees for the relative few wanting them.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> Glen
>
>