incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <gary.mar...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #146: Inline editing of objects
Date Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:44:37 GMT
Individual confirmation on every field? That sounds like the same thing as
an immediate save. I think that so far the consensus is that we don't want
that.

I've been using a few developers at apachecon as sounding boards as I am
worried that things might be more complicated than necessary. The solution
that would seem most efficient would be that all the fields that are
editable are considered to be in an editable state already. The problem
with this is then how it is made abundantly clear that a field is editable
- and it would be nice to see when a field has been edited too.

I am not yet convinced that a button to make all fields editable is the
right approach at the moment - it seems like a step you shouldn't need.

Other than that, a submit all changes button would probably work well.

Cheers,
    Gary

On 5 November 2012 10:21, Joachim Dreimann <joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com>wrote:

> 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 <joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, that sounds like we have a decision: All are in favour of
> non-immediate saves for edits.
> >
> > 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 field?
> >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EsQ__dR6Nrw#t=59s
> >
> > 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 <peter@digiverse.si> 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 <gary.martin@wandisco.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Olemis Lang <olemis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/4/12, Branko Čibej <brane@wandisco.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 05.10.2012 05:17, Olemis Lang wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/4/12, Branko Čibej <brane@wandisco.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 04.10.2012 18:33, Olemis Lang wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/4/12, Gary Martin <gary.martin@wandisco.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 04/10/12 16:54, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4 Oct 2012, at 12:01, Gary Martin <gary.martin@wandisco.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/10/12 20:50, Olemis Lang wrote:
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> As a user using a web application with the server 50 hops
away with
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>> 1.5 second ping time, I'd be very, very pissed off if every
click I
> >>>> make
> >>>>>>> generates a POST request to somewhere; even if it's an async
XHR
> >>>> (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
> >>>
>
>


-- 
Gary Martin
Lead Developer | WANdisco <http://www.wandisco.com/>
*
*
**
*Join us this October at Subversion Live
2012<http://www.wandisco.com/svn-live-2012>
*

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