Old style pages [Was: Fuseki UI: design discussions]

[Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>]

On 07/11/13 10:47, Ian Dickinson wrote:
> Next issue: currently, the Fuseki control-panel allows the user to
> select one of the current datasets by having the server dynamically
> construct an HTML page with the id's of the current datasets built-in
> to an options element. Do we want to replace this functionality with
> the client-side Javascript approach we're using for the management
> function?

Yes.

What is there is legacy and getting something that worked in the olden 
days.  The world has moved on (mostly).  More to the point, JS toolkits 
help deal with the differences in browsers.

At very worst, we simply leave the old stuff around but it's not my 
preference which is to remove it and put facilities back only if there 
is sufficient utility.  Otherwise, we end up twisting ad turning to 
accommodate stuff that people do not actually use.

> I would prefer that. The problem I see is when the server is
> run without the --mgtPort option (or whatever replaces it). How do the
> main (i.e. non-admin) pages access a list of datasets when there's no
> management API enabled?
>
> I guess I'm suggesting that the JSON API separates the general
> discovery functionality (tell me the datasets) from the admin
> functionality (let me update the datasets), so that they can be
> configured and controlled separately.

Yes.

>
> Ian
>

Let's put all legacy issues to one side for now, build the new interface 
and then consider old stuff.  There is always a balance to be struck but 
at the moment, "doing the thing" is working out what a fresh-start 
interface is.

	Andy

Re: Old style pages [Was: Fuseki UI: design discussions]

[Ian Dickinson <i....@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> What is there is legacy and getting something that worked in the olden days.
> The world has moved on (mostly).  More to the point, JS toolkits help deal
> with the differences in browsers.
>
> At very worst, we simply leave the old stuff around but it's not my
> preference which is to remove it and put facilities back only if there is
> sufficient utility.  Otherwise, we end up twisting ad turning to accommodate
> stuff that people do not actually use.

Yes, I'm in agreement with the desire to leave the legacy stuff behind
(in the new UI branch, I've moved all of the old code to /old-pages,
and the content under /pages is all new code).

What I'm raising as a design issue is the mechanism for listing the
datasets, given that we also want to allow users to turn off the admin
console altogether.

Ian