Forum OpenACS Development: Re: OpenACSZen

4: Re: OpenACSZen (response to 1)

Posted by Jon Griffin on 01/04/07 07:27 PM

I took a quick glance at the jboss spec. It is much closer to what I think is needed.

Some questions:
1. How many css files do we really need (right now with xowiki there are 7 included. We should be able to cut that back.

2. Should there be a real theme package with a default theme. That would allow a database or file based approach to theming (I prefer db based as it is easier to put an admin interface).

3. Will this require a tip?

4. Can the templates be cut back from the normal 3 to just 1.

5. Can we please for once and for all get rid of the dependencies like:

&lt;if @curriculum_bar_p@ true>
  &lt;p&gt;&lt;include src="/packages/curriculum/lib/bar" />
&lt;/if>
and &lt;if @dotlrn_toolbar_p@ true>
      &lt;include src="/packages/dotlrn/lib/toolbar">
    &lt;/if>
    &lt;if @developer_support_p@ true>
      &lt;include src="/packages/acs-developer-support/lib/toolbar">
    &lt;/if>

It probably isn't a big deal, but it sure is ugly and designers don't like it.

6. We should be able to inject into a theme through an admin interface. Things like google analytics and html_area or whatever through a hook.

7. There should be an interface to edit/preview "themes". Many apps already do this (wordpress, zen-cart & etc.)

These are my quick thoughts, please comment and let

6: Re: OpenACSZen (response to 4)

Posted by Don Baccus on 01/12/07 01:12 AM

#1. agree

#2. as is happening far too often, a feature of this sort has been added ... to .LRN. Won't get corrected (made part of acs-core) in time for 2.3, I'm afraid. Perhaps we can look towards 2.4 ...

#3. yes

#4. good question ... I'd like the answer to be "yes" but don't know. No one ever explained the rationale for having three to me, was there one?

#5. if you can think of a less-ugly way, propose it. I haven't thought of one (I agree entirely that it's ugly).

(hey I replied to question #4 and used the reply button and this post ended down at the bottom, not attached to #4. What gives? This used to work. Who's been "improving" the forums package???)