I guess I'm still confused about this
proposal.
If this is purely to allow RIM to add new information to their own
pages, then
that could be done with your own extension points. RIM could layer a
"common RIM UI" plugin on top of the MTJ UI plugin. This RIM UI
could provide the extension points for adding the sections to RIM pages.
While I can conceptually understand something generically handled by
MTJ,
unless we can address how this would affect the overall layout of the
UI I'm
hesitant to put this into the base.
If I'm missing something, please help me better understand. I don't
want
to stand in the way of good contributions and it is quite possible I'm
just not
getting it.
Craig
Jon Dearden wrote:
Hi
Craig,
I’ll address
these questions
publicly for the benefit of community discussion and then add them to
the bug.
I believe
the answer to both questions is
that any “request” for fields to appear in a section is subject to
the code for that page allowing it. This is how it works at present for
page
IDs. As an SDK provider, I can add descriptors to a page of my own
making by
specifying its ID. I can also add descriptors to any other page if I
know its
ID, and its code will allow it. If I add descriptors to an existing
page, the
fields get appended to the end of any existing fields. There may be
some
question as to whether or not that behavior should be permitted.
In bug
96641, there was a UI change
allowing fields from three JAD editor pages to be consolidated onto the
one
Optional page. This change went into nightly build N20090821. The way
this was
accomplished was by applying the descriptors to a page ID and a section
ID with
a dot notation (eg “optional.ota”). This is unpublished behavior
and only works because the new Optional Page looks for and honors the
section
ID. This proposed API change simply makes that behavior explicit. No
section
IDs are honored unless the page code has been designed to do so. So the
UI
should not be adversely affected.
The
intention of this change is to allow
an SDK provider to add descriptors fields to different sections on
their own
page and this is not currently supported.
Regards,
Jon
---
Comment
#2 from Craig Setera <craigsfnet@xxxxxxxxxx>
2009-09-06 15:23:04 EDT ---
I
like the
general concept of the improvement. Two questions:
1)
Will the
sections be added automatically if not already there?
2)
How will
layout of the sections be handled? It seems that if we have
content
popping
into the pages via extension that the layout of those pages may
be
in
jeopardy.
My
guess is
that you've already looked at these issues and I'd like to get your
thoughts
on
how to "scale up" an extension like this without making the JAD
editor
pages
looks overwhelming or messy? It seems that every vendor may have
any
number
of properties that are optional and if everyone contributes them to
the
same
page we are going to have a UI problem.
I added my comments to the bug report. In
general, I like the idea but I do have some concerns about "scaling"
the UI.
Jon Dearden wrote:
Hi
everyone,
I recently submitted a
change [Bug 284452] to the JAD
editor pages so that the former pages for OTA Properties and Push
Registry
properties have now been consolidated under the Optional page. Each of
the
three now occupies a section on the Optional page.
The MTJ API allows an SDK
provider to assign JAD descriptor
fields to a page ID but not to a section within a page. All fields are
lumped
together. In order to make the above change, I had to make a few
internal
alterations, but this ability to apply descriptor fields to sections
was not
extended to the public API for SDK providers.
This proposal is that we
enhance the API so that SDK
providers may apply descriptor fields to specific sections on specific
pages.
The Extension Element Details editor on the Extensions tab of the MTJ
plugin.xml editor would include a new “sectionID” field. Entering
data in this field is optional. The field specifies the section ID of
the page
where the descriptors are to be located. The SDK provider’s descriptors
are added to the end of any previous descriptors in that section.
I have opened bug 288530
for this
discussion. All comments are most appreciated.
Regards,
Jon
Dearden
---
Senior Software
Developer, Eclipse Tools
Research In Motion
905-629-4746 x15333 /
Mobile:
519 500-23167
jdearden@xxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information,
privileged material (including material protected by the
solicitor-client or
other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any
use of
this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If
you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply
to the
sender and delete this information from your system. Use,
dissemination,
distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended
recipients is
not authorized and may be unlawful.
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected by the
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
non-public
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the
intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
error,
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from
your
system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
transmission
by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
