Also, to make it absolutely clear when explaining migration we must stress
this as much as possible to get to peoples heads, because I know there will
be a lot of those ups, I thought I could upgrade. not just with the
templates, this should be stressed for the version numbering as a general
rule. IMHO when going from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 its like switching from windows
xp to vista to seven, things just are not going to work the same way, some
stuff wont work at all, and that is NORMAL, so that's why you have 3PD who
have to stay up to date with Joomla and NOT other way AROUND, where we
should stay compatible with developers. So lets just think simple. Make
J3.0 best we can and get rid of the obsolete and useless code and give
developers best platform to work with, then rest of the band wagon will
follow.
From: joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
[mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of elin
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 2:15 AM
To: joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [jcms] Re: 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
template?
No one that I know of wants to ship Bluestork, so the something has to go
issue is not the issue. It's how to help upgraders (a) if they have made no
changes (give them a button or option) and (b) if they have made changes to
the admin template or are using an alternative admin template .... these
webmasters are going to have do do some work which is why this is a
migration not an upgrade.
1. Hathor is a good alternative to bluestork for situations where you have
oldstyle outputs. If we can get Jeremy's admin menu work in that is going to
solve a ton of problems since we should eve be able to assign Hathor only
where needed.
2. If people have overrides in the actual Bluestork folder they can just
copy them to whatever new template they want or to Hathor.
3. I'm sure there is tons of good will and/or some money to be earned for
someone to put the time in to make a downloadable updated blue stork or even
just a zip of the old layouts to be put in any html folder, but just like
with Milky way and Solar Flare I suspect the demand is going to be extremely
limited after the first 6 weeks. Still we all know that there area premiums
out there for supporting IE6 and php 4 etc and I have no doubt that if there
is that demand the market will fill it.
4. I really think ... let's avoid excess complexity. How in the world are we
going to check whether a blue stork instance is actually a default -- what
does that even mean given that we have styles and who knows what files
added. The important thing actually is that we've said this is a migration,
we need to have good docs on what that means, in this case much much less
work than any migration that has come before.
Elin
On Saturday, August 18, 2012 3:41:03 PM UTC-4, Vic Drover wrote:
+1
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Josip Posavec <jo...@crowebs.net <javascript:>
> wrote:
I totally agree and to point out i have asked over 60 client companies to
respond to me with this same question and 54 answered that if i give them
better solution to the backend and frontend they would not even think about
not upgrading. And after i explained the different in the simpleminded
thought process of simple user they said: so u say it works on any platform
even on my iphone? After simple show and tell they all are onboard for new
and even more asking already when am i making the upgrade.
So yes, close the door to the old and lets go progressive and ahead of
others before they all catch up.
On Aug 18, 2012, at 20:17, Amy Stephen <amyst...@gmail.com <javascript:> >
wrote:
Unless the Joomla CMS is jockeying for an episode of Hoarders, something has
to go when new things are brought in. As is, the CMS is nearly 3 times
larger than both WordPress and Drupal. Ever consider how that extra weight
might be impacting the install process?
Good-bye to nearly 10 years of User Interface, time to embrace the future!
It is a good thing.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/bx3eOz8_E38J.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
<javascript:> .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> .
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
<javascript:> .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> .
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/xYvZVJCoBtYJ.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
Yes to new, but being sure that keep power users or Joomla developers in control of their older and newer realizations. Each time you take away that control you alienate the very people that are essential to the platform.
I know what I’m talking about, I’m still struggling to offer an acceptable multilingual solution in 2.5 to my customers. (still not certain how to go with it)
Responsive and all new stuff are great but they always should be voluntary options for site designer and developers (if possible).
I’m a little uneasy with that responsive business, really cool. but to having a one design fit all is really practical and in certain cases the perfect solution. But imposing dumb down design for the sake of this or that devices is in my view an error. Hopefully Joomla will keep the site designer in complete control of what he/she want to present to the world
As the administration go i think that a responsive design (if well made) will be an excellent (default) solution. In case of upgrade this HAVE TO be a choice from the Dev’s .
Everybody know that the actual upgrade path of Joomla is extremely difficult to follow for Joomla Developers and trying to keep this path a little less rocky is primordial to keep all those Dev’s interested in the platform.
I don't agree with everything you said there Chacapamac, just because I have
experience with end user since I myself am developer and webmaster, and I do
know how things work in real world. Don't mind my bad language first of all,
I do not mean any disrespect. All I know is that there has to be clean cut,
and instead of giving option to users to use responsive it should be other
way around, all should be NEW tech = default and everything else put in
components and/or options to use.
Why? For simple reason of moving with the technology, use latest but if
someone wants to use old let them use it on their own, put an option there
to turn it on, but if you ask me I would totally put it as external install
file like any other template/extension is.
True upgrade is hard, but sometime upgrade should be hard to get better
product in the end. Because if you do what you are saying we will be on
version 6.0 in a while and people will still want in that version to have
todays templates/extensions and expect them to work. which will never
happen. so lets get used to new stuff sooner = better for all.
Cheers
Josip
From: joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
[mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chacapamac
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 4:03 PM
To: joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jcms] Re: 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin template?
Thanks Elin,
I appreciate your way of thinking...
Yes to new, but being sure that keep power users or Joomla developers in
control of their older and newer realizations. Each time you take away that
control you alienate the very people that are essential to the platform.
I know what I'm talking about, I'm still struggling to offer an acceptable
multilingual solution in 2.5 to my customers. (still not certain how to go
with it)
Responsive and all new stuff are great but they always should be voluntary
options for site designer and developers (if possible).
I'm a little uneasy with that responsive business, really cool. but to
having a one design fit all is really practical and in certain cases the
perfect solution. But imposing dumb down design for the sake of this or that
devices is in my view an error. Hopefully Joomla will keep the site designer
in complete control of what he/she want to present to the world
As the administration go i think that a responsive design (if well made)
will be an excellent (default) solution. In case of upgrade this HAVE TO be
a choice from the Dev's .
Everybody know that the actual upgrade path of Joomla is extremely difficult
to follow for Joomla Developers and trying to keep this path a little less
rocky is primordial to keep all those Dev's interested in the platform.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/PBRAblBvyigJ.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>> I appreciate your way of thinking...
> Yes to new, but being sure that keep power users or Joomla developers in
> control of their older and newer realizations. Each time you take away
> that
> control you alienate the very people that are essential to the platform.
> I know what I m talking about, I m still struggling to offer an acceptable
> multilingual solution in 2.5 to my customers. (still not certain how to go
> with it)
> Responsive and all new stuff are great but they always should be voluntary
> options for site designer and developers (if possible).
> I m a little uneasy with that responsive business, really cool. but to
> having a one design fit all is really practical and in certain cases the
> perfect solution. But imposing dumb down design for the sake of this or
> that devices is in my view an error. Hopefully Joomla will keep the site
> designer in complete control of what he/she want to present to the world
> As the administration go i think that a responsive design (if well made)
> will be an excellent (default) solution. In case of upgrade this HAVE TO
> be
> a choice from the Dev s .
> Everybody know that the actual upgrade path of Joomla is extremely
> difficult to follow for Joomla Developers and trying to keep this path a
> little less rocky is primordial to keep all those Dev s interested in the
> platform.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/PBRAblBvyigJ.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
Don’t get me wrong here, we need to be able to be “Responsive” in this day of ages and in certain cases it will be the perfect economic solution for a business to reach people on all devices. I cant wait to do my first “responsive” template...
But as a web designer, I will never accept any technology to restrict or dictate in any way what I want to achieve. I don’t really care if I’m using Lego blocks or cave paintings to pass a message or present a corporation. If a technology pushed me around and funnel my creativity to some standardized vision, I will simply passed to another one that will bring me all the flexibility and power I need to do my work.
Technology should adapt to US, not the way around.
> Don t get me wrong here, we need to be able to be Responsive in this day
> of ages and in certain cases it will be the perfect economic solution for
> a
> business to reach people on all devices. I cant wait to do my first
> responsive template...
> But as a web designer, I will never accept any technology to restrict or
> dictate in any way what I want to achieve. I don t really care if I m
> using
> Lego blocks or cave paintings to pass a message or present a corporation.
> If a technology pushed me around and funnel my creativity to some
> standardized vision, I will simply passed to another one that will bring
> me
> all the flexibility and power I need to do my work.
> Technology should adapt to US, not the way around.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/EXoT8etjeC4J.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
You can still make a traditional template, the only thing you will have to do is to adjust to the new classes, ids, and layouts in the core. In this the adjustment is no different than going to the new names etc in 2.5 if you had a 1.5 template. Of course, every time, people will say " this is it once and for always, these names stay forever" but keep in mind that at that point there will doubtless be other changes in web standards and practices. Overall I've kind of come to the conclusions that we have to anticipate and plan for change in the web and in hardware rather than fight it.
On Monday, August 20, 2012 11:31:19 AM UTC-4, Chacapamac wrote:
> Don’t get me wrong here, we need to be able to be “Responsive” in this day > of ages and in certain cases it will be the perfect economic solution for a > business to reach people on all devices. I cant wait to do my first > “responsive” template...
> But as a web designer, I will never accept any technology to restrict or > dictate in any way what I want to achieve. I don’t really care if I’m using > Lego blocks or cave paintings to pass a message or present a corporation. > If a technology pushed me around and funnel my creativity to some > standardized vision, I will simply passed to another one that will bring me > all the flexibility and power I need to do my work.
> Technology should adapt to US, not the way around.
took a look at the alpha2 and saw lots of hr elements in the com_content now.
I'm not sure if this is the correct way to separate sections of contents.
> took a look at the alpha2 and saw lots of hr elements in the com_content
> now.
> I'm not sure if this is the correct way to separate sections of contents.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.**com<joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@*
> *googlegroups.com <joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB<http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB>
> .
> > Using the update script's postflight method, we can render a message to > > users if need be saying whatever we need to tell them. So, that is a > > possible approach.
if we will use HTML5 like Beez5 did, we will have.
But if we do not use it, we will have in logical way too, if we take a look at the contents itself.
Example: Frontpage
We are displaying some contentitems there.
For me each of them is an article and all together are a section, right?
It does'nt matter that they are wrapped in divs, the semantic meaning of each is still article.
On the other hand I'm asking myself for what we need hrs there.
If we use it only for the styling we can use borders instead. Otherwise the HTML/CSS concept of separtation between and content and design is broken.
I love the Isis template and appreciate great effort that has been
done to include Bootstrapp, but I think the pros of keeping Bluestork
hasn't been discussed enough:
- Radical UX change to present users. Training some users to use
Joomla backend has been a challenge for me and the bluestork hasn't
changed trough years. As much as this is a downside, may be an upside
for some cases (some users don't like radical changes). To keep up
with industry and security I'll have to upgrade Joomla for their
websites sooner or later. There are still lots of websites on Joomla
1.5 and forced change in UX could be an argument against upgrading to
3.0.
- Bluestork is in my subjective opinion better in screen real estate
management on desktop computer when it comes to item views, more
convenient to work with for power user.
- Bluestork is using colorful icons in view toolbar. It's much easier
to recognize the actions than read text or small icons. Of course,
this might be just my habit.
The thing I appreciate most in Joomla 3.0 is the foundation for
ajaxified views in the backend. This was impossible to do without
hacks in previous releases.
These are comments of somebody who developes websites based on Joomla
for last 4 years, has tried Isis template for 1 week.
On Aug 18, 7:24 pm, Brad Gies <rbg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree totally. 3.0/3.x is the first release after a major, long-term
> support release (2.5.x) and as much deprecated and obsolete stuff as
> possible should be thrown out (admin templates and magic quotes to name
> just a couple). There's never going to be a better time to do it, so do
> it and get it done :).
> Brad.
> On 18/08/2012 7:02 AM, Josip Posavec wrote:
> > I dont know about you all but to me it is common sense to use new
> > bootstrap admin template as default and to even drop the older ones
> > and offer them as seperate download.
> > Why? Simple as real life is, simple clean cut and starting over. Thats
> > why we do have J3.0 and J3.1 and why they are Short term release.
> > Forgive me for being so bold but i have seen this type of thinking
> > through out my career and it never ends up right. So if u want joomla
> > to be pushed towards the bootstrap then forget the old prehistoric
> > stuff and lets move on.
> > By the time the 3.5 is out most of the user base around the web will
> > be adopting new layouts that are mobile oriented. And more FOCUS we
> > put on it now the better we will look in the end.
> > Old outdated stuff should be dropped in this lets call it switch phase
> > that 3.0 really represents.
> > Cheers to the dev team finally happy with the way things are going
> > JP
> > Lead Project Manager
> > Sfera IT
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > On Aug 18, 2012, at 15:40, Matt Thomas <m...@betweenbrain.com
> > <mailto:m...@betweenbrain.com>> wrote:
> >> Hi Folks,
> >> As much as I'd like to see the new Bootstrap admin templates be the
> >> default ones, and I REALLY do, couldn't forcing them to be the
> >> default ones introduce backwards compatibility issues with 3PD
> >> extensions?
> >> Best,
> >> Matt
> >> Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
> >> On Aug 17, 2012 11:52 PM, "Nick Savov" <n...@iowawebcompany.com
> >> <mailto:n...@iowawebcompany.com>> wrote:
> >> Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to
> >> remove it
> >> from the 3.0 repo.
> >> @all
> >> Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the
> >> default, then
> >> force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
> >> default as it is.
> >> Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
> >> users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
> >> everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very
> >> little
> >> reward.
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Nick
> >> > And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on
> >> how those
> >> > templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave
> >> the admin
> >> > unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure
> >> the admin is
> >> > usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork
> >> working
> >> > (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's
> >> already been
> >> > enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain).
> >> In the
> >> > present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to
> >> the Template
> >> > Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present
> >> and the radio
> >> > button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a
> >> button in
> >> > our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make
> >> the admin
> >> > unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display
> >> being
> >> > changed
> >> > and most likely broken.
> >> > From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com <mailto:elin.war...@gmail.com>>
> >> > Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
> >> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>>
> >> > Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
> >> > To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
> >> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>>
> >> > Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
> >> > template?
> >> > Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would
> >> remove it
> >> > from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we
> >> point out to
> >> > people that they can and probably should switch but we
> >> shouldn't force it.
> >> > None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of
> >> sites in
> >> > question or how much customization has been done or what their
> >> training
> >> > materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people
> >> to make Blue
> >> > stork work.
> >> > Elin
> >> > On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
> >> >> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing
> >> Bluestork in
> >> >> 3.0?
> >> >> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what
> >> most on
> >> >> here
> >> >> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
> >> >> Kind regards,
> >> >> Nick
> >> >>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement
> >> as we look
> >> >>> at
> >> >>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle
> >> the admin
> >> >>> side
> >> >>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing
> >> both new
> >> >>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making
> >> the move.
> >> >>> The
> >> >>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the
> >> backend to
> >> >>> Isis
> >> >>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
> >> >>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected
> >> template for
> >> >>> an
> >> >>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done
> >> in the
> >> >>> > supporting
> >> >>> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may
> >> be the only
> >> >>> > admin
> >> >>> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I
> >> know work's
> >> >>> been
> >> >>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it
> >> does in a
> >> >>> lot
> >> >>> > of
> >> >>> > places, but there are still some places that are missing
> >> support).
> >> >>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is
> >> and highly
> >> >>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the
> >> backend or
> >> >>> do
> >> >>> > we
> >> >>> > make the change for them?
> >> >>> > --
> >> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> >> Google
> >> >>> Groups
> >> >>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> >> >>> > To post to this group, send an email to
> >> joomla-...@googlegroups.com <mailto:joomla-...@googlegroups.com>
> >> >>> <javascript:> .
> >> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> >>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com
> >> <mailto:joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com> <javascript:> .
> >> >>> > For more options, visit this group at
> >> >>> >http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> >> Google Groups
> >> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> >> > To view this discussion on the web, visit
> >> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/w_WiBi3et7IJ.
> >> > To post to this group, send an email to
> >> joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
> >> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>.
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> > joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> >> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
> >> > For more options, visit this group at
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are
Imo it's a major 3.d party components compatibility issue. It's not only about Bluestork as Hathor has the same problem. As Hathor use html overrides for core views, the core components works. I've not used Hathor much in 2.5 but from what I've seen, 3.d party components works without any overrides.
Will the developers support 2 separate sets of output (tmpl) for the backend? I guess not. And if, how load them automaticaly into the Hathor path?
I've tested to adopt Isis to a first list view. Not difficult but a lot of work. Copy/paste may help for the next ones but it will still take time. Another solution is to code everyhing independent of the template with own css and Js loading. We do not want that at all, do we?
Couldn't it be possible to have some settings for what template to use. Preferrable down to view level. This would allow a smooth transition but also for a future use of different templates (compare frontend).
If there is no solution both Bluestork and Halthor should, to my opinion, be removed. Any non professional user will be very confused if he/she change to one of these as default template. Probably he do not have he skills to write own ouputs and is very interested in fiddeling around wih the backend.
In frontend the compatibility can be solved by using different templates . It only has to be explained to the users if Bootstrap is used by the extension or not.
My hope is that the component by using Bootstrap will need no or very litle own Css,
> I love the Isis template and appreciate great effort that has been
> done to include Bootstrapp, but I think the pros of keeping Bluestork
> hasn't been discussed enough:
> - Radical UX change to present users. Training some users to use
> Joomla backend has been a challenge for me and the bluestork hasn't
> changed trough years. As much as this is a downside, may be an upside
> for some cases (some users don't like radical changes). To keep up
> with industry and security I'll have to upgrade Joomla for their
> websites sooner or later. There are still lots of websites on Joomla
> 1.5 and forced change in UX could be an argument against upgrading to
> 3.0.
> - Bluestork is in my subjective opinion better in screen real estate
> management on desktop computer when it comes to item views, more
> convenient to work with for power user.
> - Bluestork is using colorful icons in view toolbar. It's much easier
> to recognize the actions than read text or small icons. Of course,
> this might be just my habit.
> The thing I appreciate most in Joomla 3.0 is the foundation for
> ajaxified views in the backend. This was impossible to do without
> hacks in previous releases.
> These are comments of somebody who developes websites based on Joomla
> for last 4 years, has tried Isis template for 1 week.
> On Aug 18, 7:24 pm, Brad Gies <rbg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree totally. 3.0/3.x is the first release after a major, long-term
>> support release (2.5.x) and as much deprecated and obsolete stuff as
>> possible should be thrown out (admin templates and magic quotes to name
>> just a couple). There's never going to be a better time to do it, so do
>> it and get it done :).
>> Brad.
>> On 18/08/2012 7:02 AM, Josip Posavec wrote:
>>> I dont know about you all but to me it is common sense to use new
>>> bootstrap admin template as default and to even drop the older ones
>>> and offer them as seperate download.
>>> Why? Simple as real life is, simple clean cut and starting over. Thats
>>> why we do have J3.0 and J3.1 and why they are Short term release.
>>> Forgive me for being so bold but i have seen this type of thinking
>>> through out my career and it never ends up right. So if u want joomla
>>> to be pushed towards the bootstrap then forget the old prehistoric
>>> stuff and lets move on.
>>> By the time the 3.5 is out most of the user base around the web will
>>> be adopting new layouts that are mobile oriented. And more FOCUS we
>>> put on it now the better we will look in the end.
>>> Old outdated stuff should be dropped in this lets call it switch phase
>>> that 3.0 really represents.
>>> Cheers to the dev team finally happy with the way things are going
>>> JP
>>> Lead Project Manager
>>> Sfera IT
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 15:40, Matt Thomas <m...@betweenbrain.com
>>> <mailto:m...@betweenbrain.com>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>> As much as I'd like to see the new Bootstrap admin templates be the
>>>> default ones, and I REALLY do, couldn't forcing them to be the
>>>> default ones introduce backwards compatibility issues with 3PD
>>>> extensions?
>>>> Best,
>>>> Matt
>>>> Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
>>>> On Aug 17, 2012 11:52 PM, "Nick Savov" <n...@iowawebcompany.com
>>>> <mailto:n...@iowawebcompany.com>> wrote:
>>>> Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to
>>>> remove it
>>>> from the 3.0 repo.
>>>> @all
>>>> Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the
>>>> default, then
>>>> force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
>>>> default as it is.
>>>> Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
>>>> users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
>>>> everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very
>>>> little
>>>> reward.
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Nick
>>>> > And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on
>>>> how those
>>>> > templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave
>>>> the admin
>>>> > unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure
>>>> the admin is
>>>> > usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork
>>>> working
>>>> > (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's
>>>> already been
>>>> > enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain).
>>>> In the
>>>> > present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to
>>>> the Template
>>>> > Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present
>>>> and the radio
>>>> > button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a
>>>> button in
>>>> > our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make
>>>> the admin
>>>> > unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display
>>>> being
>>>> > changed
>>>> > and most likely broken.
>>>> > From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com <mailto:elin.war...@gmail.com>>
>>>> > Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
>>>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>>
>>>> > Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
>>>> > To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
>>>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>>
>>>> > Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
>>>> > template?
>>>> > Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would
>>>> remove it
>>>> > from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we
>>>> point out to
>>>> > people that they can and probably should switch but we
>>>> shouldn't force it.
>>>> > None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of
>>>> sites in
>>>> > question or how much customization has been done or what their
>>>> training
>>>> > materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people
>>>> to make Blue
>>>> > stork work.
>>>> > Elin
>>>> > On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
>>>> >> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing
>>>> Bluestork in
>>>> >> 3.0?
>>>> >> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what
>>>> most on
>>>> >> here
>>>> >> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
>>>> >> Kind regards,
>>>> >> Nick
>>>> >>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement
>>>> as we look
>>>> >>> at
>>>> >>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle
>>>> the admin
>>>> >>> side
>>>> >>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing
>>>> both new
>>>> >>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making
>>>> the move.
>>>> >>> The
>>>> >>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the
>>>> backend to
>>>> >>> Isis
>>>> >>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
>>>> >>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected
>>>> template for
>>>> >>> an
>>>> >>> > application, ever. On the other hand, with the work done
>>>> in the
>>>> >>> > supporting
>>>> >>> > classes (component layouts, HTML helpers, etc.), Isis may
>>>> be the only
>>>> >>> > admin
>>>> >>> > template that is fully usable on 3.0 come release (and I
>>>> know work's
>>>> >>> been
>>>> >>> > done for Hathor to make it work with the new markup, and it
>>>> does in a
>>>> >>> lot
>>>> >>> > of
>>>> >>> > places, but there are still some places that are missing
>>>> support).
>>>> >>> > So, what should we do? Leave the admin template set as is
>>>> and highly
>>>> >>> > encourage the user to switch to Isis to be able to use the
>>>> backend or
>>>> >>> do
>>>> >>> > we
>>>> >>> > make the change for them?
>>>> >>> > --
>>>> >>> > You received this
I agree that all backend extensions should have possibility to be
template agnostic.
Of course, this is in theory and I didn't upgrade the extensions to
Bootstrap yet so can't speak about the experiences.
On Aug 23, 12:58 pm, Ove <tobby.eriks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Imo it's a major 3.d party components compatibility issue. It's not only
> about Bluestork as Hathor has the same problem. As Hathor use html
> overrides for core views, the core components works. I've not used
> Hathor much in 2.5 but from what I've seen, 3.d party components works
> without any overrides.
> Will the developers support 2 separate sets of output (tmpl) for the
> backend? I guess not. And if, how load them automaticaly into the Hathor
> path?
> I've tested to adopt Isis to a first list view. Not difficult but a lot
> of work. Copy/paste may help for the next ones but it will still take
> time. Another solution is to code everyhing independent of the template
> with own css and Js loading. We do not want that at all, do we?
> Couldn't it be possible to have some settings for what template to use.
> Preferrable down to view level. This would allow a smooth transition
> but also for a future use of different templates (compare frontend).
> If there is no solution both Bluestork and Halthor should, to my
> opinion, be removed. Any non professional user will be very confused if
> he/she change to one of these as default template. Probably he do not
> have he skills to write own ouputs and is very interested in fiddeling
> around wih the backend.
> In frontend the compatibility can be solved by using different templates
> . It only has to be explained to the users if Bootstrap is used by the
> extension or not.
> My hope is that the component by using Bootstrap will need no or very
> litle own Css,
> Regards
> Ove
> piotr_cz skrev 22.08.2012 11:38:
> > I disagree :)
> > I love the Isis template and appreciate great effort that has been
> > done to include Bootstrapp, but I think the pros of keeping Bluestork
> > hasn't been discussed enough:
> > - Radical UX change to present users. Training some users to use
> > Joomla backend has been a challenge for me and the bluestork hasn't
> > changed trough years. As much as this is a downside, may be an upside
> > for some cases (some users don't like radical changes). To keep up
> > with industry and security I'll have to upgrade Joomla for their
> > websites sooner or later. There are still lots of websites on Joomla
> > 1.5 and forced change in UX could be an argument against upgrading to
> > 3.0.
> > - Bluestork is in my subjective opinion better in screen real estate
> > management on desktop computer when it comes to item views, more
> > convenient to work with for power user.
> > - Bluestork is using colorful icons in view toolbar. It's much easier
> > to recognize the actions than read text or small icons. Of course,
> > this might be just my habit.
> > The thing I appreciate most in Joomla 3.0 is the foundation for
> > ajaxified views in the backend. This was impossible to do without
> > hacks in previous releases.
> > These are comments of somebody who developes websites based on Joomla
> > for last 4 years, has tried Isis template for 1 week.
> > On Aug 18, 7:24 pm, Brad Gies <rbg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I agree totally. 3.0/3.x is the first release after a major, long-term
> >> support release (2.5.x) and as much deprecated and obsolete stuff as
> >> possible should be thrown out (admin templates and magic quotes to name
> >> just a couple). There's never going to be a better time to do it, so do
> >> it and get it done :).
> >> Brad.
> >> On 18/08/2012 7:02 AM, Josip Posavec wrote:
> >>> I dont know about you all but to me it is common sense to use new
> >>> bootstrap admin template as default and to even drop the older ones
> >>> and offer them as seperate download.
> >>> Why? Simple as real life is, simple clean cut and starting over. Thats
> >>> why we do have J3.0 and J3.1 and why they are Short term release.
> >>> Forgive me for being so bold but i have seen this type of thinking
> >>> through out my career and it never ends up right. So if u want joomla
> >>> to be pushed towards the bootstrap then forget the old prehistoric
> >>> stuff and lets move on.
> >>> By the time the 3.5 is out most of the user base around the web will
> >>> be adopting new layouts that are mobile oriented. And more FOCUS we
> >>> put on it now the better we will look in the end.
> >>> Old outdated stuff should be dropped in this lets call it switch phase
> >>> that 3.0 really represents.
> >>> Cheers to the dev team finally happy with the way things are going
> >>> JP
> >>> Lead Project Manager
> >>> Sfera IT
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 15:40, Matt Thomas <m...@betweenbrain.com
> >>> <mailto:m...@betweenbrain.com>> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Folks,
> >>>> As much as I'd like to see the new Bootstrap admin templates be the
> >>>> default ones, and I REALLY do, couldn't forcing them to be the
> >>>> default ones introduce backwards compatibility issues with 3PD
> >>>> extensions?
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Matt
> >>>> Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
> >>>> On Aug 17, 2012 11:52 PM, "Nick Savov" <n...@iowawebcompany.com
> >>>> <mailto:n...@iowawebcompany.com>> wrote:
> >>>> Elin, good point. It would still be there even if we decide to
> >>>> remove it
> >>>> from the 3.0 repo.
> >>>> @all
> >>>> Wouldn't it be simple to check if Bluestork is set as the
> >>>> default, then
> >>>> force the switch? If Bluestork is not set as the default, leave the
> >>>> default as it is.
> >>>> Alternatively, Bluestork could be updated (simply for the 2.5 to 3.0
> >>>> users), but not maintained thereafter. That, it seems, would meet
> >>>> everyone's wants and desires, but would be a lot of work for very
> >>>> little
> >>>> reward.
> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>> Nick
> >>>> > And that's why we need to come to a consensus. Depending on
> >>>> how those
> >>>> > templates were designed, there's a chance that we will leave
> >>>> the admin
> >>>> > unusable for those folks. The only guaranteed way to ensure
> >>>> the admin is
> >>>> > usable post-update is to force switch to Isis or get Bluestork
> >>>> working
> >>>> > (which means keeping it around for the 3 series, and there's
> >>>> already been
> >>>> > enough grumbling about having 3 admin templates to maintain).
> >>>> In the
> >>>> > present state, you can't effectively navigate in Bluestork to
> >>>> the Template
> >>>> > Manager and set Isis as default (the grid icon isn't present
> >>>> and the radio
> >>>> > button in the style edit view is overlapped). Unless we have a
> >>>> button in
> >>>> > our postflight notice to make the switch, you effectively make
> >>>> the admin
> >>>> > unusable. To me, this is a larger issue than the site display
> >>>> being
> >>>> > changed
> >>>> > and most likely broken.
> >>>> > From: elin <elin.war...@gmail.com <mailto:elin.war...@gmail.com>>
> >>>> > Reply-To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
> >>>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>>
> >>>> > Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:08 PM
> >>>> > To: <joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com
> >>>> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com>>
> >>>> > Subject: Re: [jcms] 2.5 to 3.0 Update - What to do with the admin
> >>>> > template?
> >>>> > Removing bluestork from the distribution does not mean we would
> >>>> remove it
> >>>> > from people's sites. As mentioned above the ideal is that we
> >>>> point out to
> >>>> > people that they can and probably should switch but we
> >>>> shouldn't force it.
> >>>> > None of us know the circumstances of each of the millions of
> >>>> sites in
> >>>> > question or how much customization has been done or what their
> >>>> training
> >>>> > materials look like. it could well be worth it to some people
> >>>> to make Blue
> >>>> > stork work.
> >>>> > Elin
> >>>> > On Friday, August 17, 2012 3:30:40 PM UTC-4, Nick Savov wrote:
> >>>> >> Are there any strong *objections* to completely removing
> >>>> Bluestork in
> >>>> >> 3.0?
> >>>> >> If not, we could remove Bluestork (as this appears to be what
> >>>> most on
> >>>> >> here
> >>>> >> want) and make the switch to Isis for upgraders from 2.5 to 3.0.
> >>>> >> Kind regards,
> >>>> >> Nick
> >>>> >>> > I think this is an important item to discuss and implement
> >>>> as we look
> >>>> >>> at
> >>>> >>> > potential updates from 2.5 to 3.0. How should we handle
> >>>> the admin
> >>>> >>> side
> >>>> >>> > template? I think our update SQL should handle installing
> >>>> both new
> >>>> >>> > Bootstrap based templates to ease the work needed in making
> >>>> the move.
> >>>> >>> The
> >>>> >>> > question here is about changing the template in use in the
> >>>> backend to
> >>>> >>> Isis
> >>>> >>> > (the new admin template) during the update.
> >>>> >>> > On one hand, we shouldn't be changing a user's selected
> >>>> template for
> >>>> >>> an
> >>>> >>> > application,
For what it's worth, I think it's a no brainer to remove Bluestork and force move admin templates onto Isis (or leave them on Hathor if they already are). Not that it's set in stone, but it's the way every major increment of Joomla has been done that I can recall. On that note, and echoing others, this is a major increment - we shouldn't be stressing over major change. The major increment is a point where we are supposed to deshackle ourselves from compatibility if we need or want to. Yes, it will break some extensions initially. That's the lesser evil compared to the whole admin breaking.
As for Bluestork itself, there is no reason why it can't be put out to pasture and picked up by people that want to maintain it (and that leads onto another topic of project distro builders so we don't have to be wastefully angsting over what should or shouldn't go in the core - just roll a different disto ... but I digress) either in an official repository on github (say "joomla-cms-less" - pun intended - all the stuff we wanted to cram in but didn't have room for), or someone can take a personal interest in picking it up. I doubt there will be much long term support for Bluestork because all the new books, docs, blogs, etc are going to feature Isis - that's the baby that's going to be the face of the J3 admin. And to be honest, I would wager most new, custom J3 admin templates are going to be modelled (no pun intended this time) off her. My own experience is that every new admin template that has been shipped has taken some getting used to; but whenever I've gone back to a previous version, it's almost an "oh, yuck, what were we thinking" moment. I'm sure that will be the case for Isis (J3) vs Bluestork (J2).
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:42:36 AM UTC+1, Andrew Eddie wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think it's a no brainer to remove Bluestork and > force move admin templates onto Isis (or leave them on Hathor if they > already are). Not that it's set in stone, but it's the way every major > increment of Joomla has been done that I can recall.
Maybe what we could do is switch everyone but tell them how to switch back in a post flight. The only issue that would leave I think is people who are on Hathor for accessibility reasons who can't change back to Hathor but possibly we could just provide a button for switching to Hathor.
I really meant it when I said that seeing Blue Stork in 3 is going to scare users. A percentage are going to think something went wrong and panic. It's just not a polished transition, and I would rather avoid that.
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:42:36 PM UTC-4, Andrew Eddie wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think it's a no brainer to remove Bluestork and > force move admin templates onto Isis (or leave them on Hathor if they > already are). Not that it's set in stone, but it's the way every major > increment of Joomla has been done that I can recall. On that note, and > echoing others, this is a major increment - we shouldn't be stressing over > major change. The major increment is a point where we are supposed to > deshackle ourselves from compatibility if we need or want to. Yes, it will > break some extensions initially. That's the lesser evil compared to the > whole admin breaking.
> As for Bluestork itself, there is no reason why it can't be put out to > pasture and picked up by people that want to maintain it (and that leads > onto another topic of project distro builders so we don't have to be > wastefully angsting over what should or shouldn't go in the core - just > roll a different disto ... but I digress) either in an official repository > on github (say "joomla-cms-less" - pun intended - all the stuff we wanted > to cram in but didn't have room for), or someone can take a personal > interest in picking it up. I doubt there will be much long term support > for Bluestork because all the new books, docs, blogs, etc are going to > feature Isis - that's the baby that's going to be the face of the J3 admin. > And to be honest, I would wager most new, custom J3 admin templates are > going to be modelled (no pun intended this time) off her. My own > experience is that every new admin template that has been shipped has taken > some getting used to; but whenever I've gone back to a previous version, > it's almost an "oh, yuck, what were we thinking" moment. I'm sure that > will be the case for Isis (J3) vs Bluestork (J2).
On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 12:09:05 UTC +1, elin wrote:
> Maybe what we could do is switch everyone but tell Them how to switch back > in the post flight. The only issue would leave That I think is people who > are on accessibility Reasons for Hathor who can not change back to Hathor > but just possibly We Could Provide a button for switching to Hathor.
> I really Meant it when i said That seeing Stork in Blue 3 is going to > scare users. The percentage are going to think something went wrong and > panic. It's just not a polished transition, and I would rather avoid that.
> Elin On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:42:36 PM UTC-4, Andrew Eddie wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think it's a no brainer to remove the force and >> moves Bluestork admin templates onto Isis (or leave Them If They Already on >> Hathor are). Not that it's set in stone, but it's the way every major >> increment of Joomla Has Been done that I can recall. On that note, and >> echoing others, this is a major increment - we should not be stressing over >> major change. The major increment is the point where we are supposed to >> deshackle ourselves from compatibility if we need or want to. Yes, it >> will break some extensions INITIALLY. That's the lesser evil Compared to >> the whole admin breaking.
>> The Bluestork for itself, there is no reason why it can not be put out to >> pasture and picked up by People that want to Maintain it (And That leads >> onto another topic of project distro builders so we do not have to be >> wastefully angsting over what should or should not go in the core - just a >> different roll this ... but I digress) Either in an official repository on >> github (say "joomla-cms-less" - pun intended - all the stuff we wanted to >> cram in but did not have room for), or someone can take a personal interest >> in picking it up. I doubt there will be much support for long term >> Bluestork because all the new books, docs, blogs, etc. are going to feature >> Isis - that's the baby that's going to be the face of the J3 admin. And >> to be honest, I would wager most new, custom J3 admin templates are going >> to be modeled (no pun intended this time) off her. My own experience is >> every new admin template That Has Been That shipped has taken some getting >> used to, but Whenever I've gone back to the previous version, it's almost >> an "oh, yuck, what were we thinking" moment. I'm sure That will be the >> case for Isis (J3) vs Bluestork (J2).
When you upgrade windows you don't get a display of a broken version of the old windows on your screen and have to take multiple steps to finish. You get the new version. I am really against having people see a broken blue stork for even a minute if we can avoid it. I think there are real down sides to every option we have discussed but probably switching to Isis and then giving instructions on how to switch back is probably going to be the least problematic ... but I would like to hear from someone who knows about accessibility to understand the extent to which switching to Isis and asking users to manually go back to Hathor is acceptable.
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:48:44 PM UTC-4, brian teeman wrote:
> did people panic when they upgraded windows and the UI changed 1000% and > assume something went wrong - ofc they didt
> On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 12:09:05 UTC +1, elin wrote:
>> Maybe what we could do is switch everyone but tell Them how to switch >> back in the post flight. The only issue would leave That I think is >> people who are on accessibility Reasons for Hathor who can not change back >> to Hathor but just possibly We Could Provide a button for switching to >> Hathor.
>> I really Meant it when i said That seeing Stork in Blue 3 is going to >> scare users. The percentage are going to think something went wrong and >> panic. It's just not a polished transition, and I would rather avoid >> that.
>> Elin On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:42:36 PM UTC-4, Andrew Eddie wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I think it's a no brainer to remove the force and >>> moves Bluestork admin templates onto Isis (or leave Them If They Already on >>> Hathor are). Not that it's set in stone, but it's the way every major >>> increment of Joomla Has Been done that I can recall. On that note, and >>> echoing others, this is a major increment - we should not be stressing over >>> major change. The major increment is the point where we are supposed to >>> deshackle ourselves from compatibility if we need or want to. Yes, it >>> will break some extensions INITIALLY. That's the lesser evil Compared >>> to the whole admin breaking.
>>> The Bluestork for itself, there is no reason why it can not be put out >>> to pasture and picked up by People that want to Maintain it (And That leads >>> onto another topic of project distro builders so we do not have to be >>> wastefully angsting over what should or should not go in the core - just a >>> different roll this ... but I digress) Either in an official repository on >>> github (say "joomla-cms-less" - pun intended - all the stuff we wanted to >>> cram in but did not have room for), or someone can take a personal interest >>> in picking it up. I doubt there will be much support for long term >>> Bluestork because all the new books, docs, blogs, etc. are going to feature >>> Isis - that's the baby that's going to be the face of the J3 admin. And >>> to be honest, I would wager most new, custom J3 admin templates are going >>> to be modeled (no pun intended this time) off her. My own experience is >>> every new admin template That Has Been That shipped has taken some getting >>> used to, but Whenever I've gone back to the previous version, it's almost >>> an "oh, yuck, what were we thinking" moment. I'm sure That will be the >>> case for Isis (J3) vs Bluestork (J2).
Switching the style is easy, just a DB query. In our script file (not the update DDL), query the database to determine the template for admin and change it if it isn't Hathor based.
-Michael
Please pardon any errors, this message was sent from my iPhone.
On Aug 29, 2012, at 3:44 PM, elin <elin.war...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you upgrade windows you don't get a display of a broken version of the old windows on your screen and have to take multiple steps to finish. You get the new version. I am really against having people see a broken blue stork for even a minute if we can avoid it. I think there are real down sides to every option we have discussed but probably switching to Isis and then giving instructions on how to switch back is probably going to be the least problematic ... but I would like to hear from someone who knows about accessibility to understand the extent to which switching to Isis and asking users to manually go back to Hathor is acceptable.
> Elin
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:48:44 PM UTC-4, brian teeman wrote:
> did people panic when they upgraded windows and the UI changed 1000% and assume something went wrong - ofc they didt
> On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 12:09:05 UTC +1, elin wrote:
> Maybe what we could do is switch everyone but tell Them how to switch back in the post flight. The only issue would leave That I think is people who are on accessibility Reasons for Hathor who can not change back to Hathor but just possibly We Could Provide a button for switching to Hathor.
> I really Meant it when i said That seeing Stork in Blue 3 is going to scare users. The percentage are going to think something went wrong and panic. It's just not a polished transition, and I would rather avoid that.
> Elin On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:42:36 PM UTC-4, Andrew Eddie wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think it's a no brainer to remove the force and moves Bluestork admin templates onto Isis (or leave Them If They Already on Hathor are). Not that it's set in stone, but it's the way every major increment of Joomla Has Been done that I can recall. On that note, and echoing others, this is a major increment - we should not be stressing over major change. The major increment is the point where we are supposed to deshackle ourselves from compatibility if we need or want to. Yes, it will break some extensions INITIALLY. That's the lesser evil Compared to the whole admin breaking.
> The Bluestork for itself, there is no reason why it can not be put out to pasture and picked up by People that want to Maintain it (And That leads onto another topic of project distro builders so we do not have to be wastefully angsting over what should or should not go in the core - just a different roll this ... but I digress) Either in an official repository on github (say "joomla-cms-less" - pun intended - all the stuff we wanted to cram in but did not have room for), or someone can take a personal interest in picking it up. I doubt there will be much support for long term Bluestork because all the new books, docs, blogs, etc. are going to feature Isis - that's the baby that's going to be the face of the J3 admin. And to be honest, I would wager most new, custom J3 admin templates are going to be modeled (no pun intended this time) off her. My own experience is every new admin template That Has Been That shipped has taken some getting used to, but Whenever I've gone back to the previous version, it's almost an "oh, yuck, what were we thinking" moment. I'm sure That will be the case for Isis (J3) vs Bluestork (J2).
> My 2c
> Regards,
> Andrew Eddie
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/yH4J6uwZB_8J.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
Maybe I'm missing part of the issue but why can't we special case hathor and switch all other templates?
As far as I can tell we have two places where we set the template (style)
1. The site's main style in #__template_styles
2. The user profiles
Number one is a trivial SQL query.
Number 2 is a bit more tricky, we have to decode the user params for every user and check whether the template style belongs to hathor - in this case do nothing - or to some other template - in this case switch to isis.
Excellent point that the default style for a site may not be the style for all users and that some webmasters may have done complex things such as using different template styles for different groups. So, changing the site default is not going to be enough to change the default for all users.
I'm going to say that in that case "this is a migration not an update" should apply and if people have enabled style selection they are going to have to figure out how to cope with change. Just leaving things alone will mean that anyone who has individually been assigned to Hathor will still have Hathor and I'd rather do that than attempt to do any messing with user parameters We can't possibly read their data and understand what they have done. They could have plugins changing the actual list of parameters, among other things. So we need to document this as a "something to plan for when doing a migration" in the release notes.
There is always a risk of something going wrong but what I would say is:
1. Query to find out if Hathor is still installed.
2. Query for the default style and if it is anything besides Hathor change it to Isis default. 3. If possible in the post flight notify people that they can change back via the template style manager.
I can't see taking a site with 50,000 users and attempting to decode the user settings to see if there are users who have been specifically assigned styles other than Hathor. It just all seems so very unlikely as well--I doubt very much that people have consciously self assigned Blue Stork which leave Hathor (which we want to leave alone) or an alternative template (which means probably a relatively sophisticated web master).
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:51:26 PM UTC-4, Rouven Weßling wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing part of the issue but why can't we special case hathor > and switch all other templates?
> As far as I can tell we have two places where we set the template (style) > 1. The site's main style in #__template_styles > 2. The user profiles
> Number one is a trivial SQL query.
> Number 2 is a bit more tricky, we have to decode the user params for every > user and check whether the template style belongs to hathor - in this case > do nothing - or to some other template - in this case switch to isis.
On Saturday, August 18, 2012 9:09:30 PM UTC+2, crocoast wrote:
> I totally agree and to point out i have asked over 60 client companies to > respond to me with this same question and 54 answered that if i give them > better solution to the backend and frontend they would not even think about > not upgrading. And after i explained the different in the simpleminded > thought process of simple user they said: so u say it works on any platform > even on my iphone? After simple show and tell they all are onboard for new > and even more asking already when am i making the upgrade.
> So yes, close the door to the old and lets go progressive and ahead of > others before they all catch up.
> Josip Posavec > Lead Project Manager > Sfera IT > Mob:+385 98 947 7597 > E-Mail: jo...@crowebs.net <javascript:> > Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 20:17, Amy Stephen <amyst...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote:
> Unless the Joomla CMS is jockeying for an episode of Hoarders, something > has to go when new things are brought in. As is, the CMS is nearly 3 times > larger than both WordPress and Drupal. Ever consider how that extra weight > might be impacting the install process?
> Good-bye to nearly 10 years of User Interface, time to embrace the future! > It is a good thing.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Joomla! CMS Development" group. > To view this discussion on the web, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/bx3eOz8_E38J. > To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:44:07 PM UTC+2, elin wrote:
> When you upgrade windows you don't get a display of a broken version of > the old windows on your screen and have to take multiple steps to finish. > You get the new version. I am really against having people see a broken > blue stork for even a minute if we can avoid it. I think there are real > down sides to every option we have discussed but probably switching to Isis > and then giving instructions on how to switch back is probably going to be > the least problematic ... but I would like to hear from someone who knows > about accessibility to understand the extent to which switching to Isis and > asking users to manually go back to Hathor is acceptable.
> Elin
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:48:44 PM UTC-4, brian teeman wrote:
>> did people panic when they upgraded windows and the UI changed 1000% and >> assume something went wrong - ofc they didt
>> On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 12:09:05 UTC +1, elin wrote:
>>> Maybe what we could do is switch everyone but tell Them how to switch >>> back in the post flight. The only issue would leave That I think is >>> people who are on accessibility Reasons for Hathor who can not change back >>> to Hathor but just possibly We Could Provide a button for switching to >>> Hathor.
>>> I really Meant it when i said That seeing Stork in Blue 3 is going to >>> scare users. The percentage are going to think something went wrong and >>> panic. It's just not a polished transition, and I would rather avoid >>> that.
>>> Elin On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:42:36 PM UTC-4, Andrew Eddie wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, I think it's a no brainer to remove the force and >>>> moves Bluestork admin templates onto Isis (or leave Them If They Already on >>>> Hathor are). Not that it's set in stone, but it's the way every major >>>> increment of Joomla Has Been done that I can recall. On that note, and >>>> echoing others, this is a major increment - we should not be stressing over >>>> major change. The major increment is the point where we are supposed >>>> to deshackle ourselves from compatibility if we need or want to. Yes, >>>> it will break some extensions INITIALLY. That's the lesser evil >>>> Compared to the whole admin breaking.
>>>> The Bluestork for itself, there is no reason why it can not be put out >>>> to pasture and picked up by People that want to Maintain it (And That leads >>>> onto another topic of project distro builders so we do not have to be >>>> wastefully angsting over what should or should not go in the core - just a >>>> different roll this ... but I digress) Either in an official repository on >>>> github (say "joomla-cms-less" - pun intended - all the stuff we wanted to >>>> cram in but did not have room for), or someone can take a personal interest >>>> in picking it up. I doubt there will be much support for long term >>>> Bluestork because all the new books, docs, blogs, etc. are going to feature >>>> Isis - that's the baby that's going to be the face of the J3 admin. And >>>> to be honest, I would wager most new, custom J3 admin templates are going >>>> to be modeled (no pun intended this time) off her. My own experience >>>> is every new admin template That Has Been That shipped has taken some >>>> getting used to, but Whenever I've gone back to the previous version, it's >>>> almost an "oh, yuck, what were we thinking" moment. I'm sure That will >>>> be the case for Isis (J3) vs Bluestork (J2).
