bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joachim Dreimann <>
Subject Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #146: Inline editing of objects
Date Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:21:29 GMT
I notice that there were no replies to my last message (see below) and the ticket has therefore
been put on hold. We've made no progress in a whole month on an issue all seemed to agree
was important.

The question remains:
> Should we enable the 'edit' state for all fields using one button and submit using one
button, or should we take Jira's approach of asking for individual confirmation on every field?

- Joe

On 5 Oct 2012, at 20:10, Joe Dreimann <> wrote:

> Ok, that sounds like we have a decision: All are in favour of non-immediate saves for
> Now, should we enable the 'edit' state for all fields using one button and submit using
one button, or should we take Jira's approach of asking for individual confirmation on every
> I'm bringing up Jira because it's used in a very similar context as Bloodhound.
> Cheers,
> Joe
> ________________________
> @jdreimann - Twitter
> Sent from my phone
> On 5 Oct 2012, at 09:29, Peter Koželj <> wrote:
>> I too am strongly against inline editing causing auto-save. Ticket
>> changes must be intended and atomical!
>> 1. Tickets are versioned and this messes up the ticket history
>> 2. Multiple ticket notifications get sent out
>> 3. Any ticket statistics get incorrect
>> 4. In bigger enterprise environments tracking systems are integrated with
>> other infrastructure, which means unintended inconsistencies are propagated
>> to other systems as well
>> 5. Companies will offen grant their customers access to tracking system and
>> last person that I want to burdon with this, is my client.
>> 6. If this works only for half of the tickt's fields, it is inconsistent!
>> And the problem will just be worse when we try to get rid of that "Modify"
>> section.
>> I do find the proposed concept appealing for things like user preferences
>> but even for that we would need to weight pros and cons.
>> Peter
>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Gary Martin <>wrote:
>>> Olemis Lang <> wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/12, Branko Čibej <> wrote:
>>>>> On 05.10.2012 05:17, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/4/12, Branko Čibej <> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04.10.2012 18:33, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/4/12, Gary Martin <>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/10/12 16:54, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4 Oct 2012, at 12:01, Gary Martin <>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/10/12 20:50, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> As a user using a web application with the server 50 hops away
>>>> a
>>>>>>> 1.5 second ping time, I'd be very, very pissed off if every click
>>>> make
>>>>>>> generates a POST request to somewhere; even if it's an async
>>>> (even
>>>>>>> worse! then I don't know in what order the server actually receives
>>>> the
>>>>>>> requests).
>>>>>> ... if you take a look at #146 attachments you'll notice that my
>>>> first
>>>>>> proposal included submit button for select fields . I was told to
>>>>>> revert that .
>>>>> Hmm. "Told to" implies hierarchy.
>>>> ... or respect to the opinions of the experts , and Joachim is the UI
>>>> expert . When I have radical objections to other people's thoughts and
>>>> ideas (e.g. on the subject of WikiMacros ) or even when I agree but
>>>> there are underlying technical decisions that make it impossible to
>>>> realize some ideas then I express my opinion . This time I don't think
>>>> it was the case . /me studying and learning about UI design , etc ...
>>>> but that's just work in progress . Hence most of the time I won't
>>>> criticize UI decisions beyond «evident» issues I might notice.
>>>> So to clarify my position , in this particular case i.e. #146 , I
>>>> declare myself a completely happy neophyte and *so far* I have no
>>>> strong arguments in favor or against any of both approaches . Please
>>>> get to an agreement . In the meantime , if I have something to say
>>>> I'll say it . Just let me know what needs to be done to continue work
>>>> needed to finish patches  for #146 , please .
>>>> ;)
>>> This is why we need more decisions to be made here. No one person is going
>>> to be right on every decision.
>>> For some reason I didn't get the impression from the discussion in the
>>> ticket that it would result in immediate edits. If more people were
>>> watching the discussion, this might have been caught earlier as something
>>> that people would frown upon. Maybe.
>>> Anyway, personally I want to see in-place edits implemented such that the
>>> changes are not sent immediately but should be submitted with a single
>>> button.
>>> I would probably be attempting to effectively use the existing form to
>>> send the data - I suspect that at some point we will want the old form
>>> hidden but it should probably be available for js disabled situations.
>>> For me, that would be enough work on the ticket. After that we can build
>>> on that work with things like indicating which fields are edited and
>>> perhaps making it easier to comment on the changes (the comment field is
>>> way down the page on long tickets). I would also be interested in whether
>>> people would want to see a confirmation that the user should move away from
>>> a page when there are edits that are not submitted.
>>> Cheers,
>>>   Gary

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message