Forum OpenACS Development: Proposal: use portlets for all 4.x admin

We all know that ACS admin is week, disorganized, and spread
out all over the place. I suggest that all admin pages for specific
modules be implemented via portlets. This would allow
authorized users to create their own, customized admin portals.
It also might encourage some UI consistency for admin.

This is an idea that I generalized from some of the work being
done on the ACS Java UI. See, for example:

In general, the UI wireframes for ACS Java are excellent and well
worth taking a little time to study.

Posted by Rafael Calvo on
It sounds like a good idea. But I think that a default portal should be created when you add a package.

I have not yet spend enough time in the admin of OACS4, so I can't really say much about the usability, except that is much better than 3x.

Going back to your point when you add a package like bboard, its admin portlet should be inmediately added to the the *big* admin portal. Otherwise you would be adding a lot of complexity for a newbie administrator. The truth is that not many people customize portals.

Posted by Ken Kennedy on
Before I even take a look at this, I have to ask the question. Where does the "covered by ADPL" line get crossed? I know that Ben has requested on the ACS4.6 thread that developers NOT take a look at the ACS 4.6 source code. In addition, if you read the ADPL FAQ, you'll note:

If I look at ACS source code covered under ADPL and apply general ideas and concepts learned from this review in products I develop, am I bound by ADPL?

No. The terms of ADPL would extend to direct or closely similar reimplementations of ACS, in Java or any other language. This would extend to close similarities at any layer of ACS: in the data model, application logic, page flow, or presentation layer.

Unfortunately, "reading the UI wireframes for ACS Java" sounds to me an awful lot like "close similarities ... in application logic, page flow, or presentation layer". Or does that only apply to code, not specifications?

Now, IANAL, and I don't want to create any difficulties here, but has there been a decision, as a project, on whether or not we're going to be able to continue to model directly off of ACS? I'd just like some guidance. Personally, until I hear otherwise and clearly from reliable sources, I am staying away from ACS 4.6 ANYTHING (code, specs, etc.). I don't particularly like to say that, but better safe than sorry...

Posted by Michael Feldstein on
Ken, it seems you are right to be concerned. I had asked this
question on the other openacs bboard. The preliminary answer I
got was, "It should be OK," but I didn't see Ben's follow-up
answer, since it went up somewhere around the time that the
site went down.

Check out this thread: