• Inconsistent view names

    By Mark Teichmann 2 decades ago

    The view names do not have a consistent naming scheme, that is disturbing. Some have aliases, some not.

    E.g. the view 'rwf States' has a space in its name and no alias, while the view 'rwfConfiguration' has no space in its name and an alias.

    • View names annoy me too

      By Colin Williams 2 decades ago

      It annoys me slightly too…to the point that my own internal version has them all "fixed".



      I like the idea that all RWF design elements including form names are prefixed with "rwf" so I can easily see them compared to the app I'm using them in. They'd just be better if they were all consistent - no spaces between "rwf", no alias unless required (eg, the rwfMemo form).



      The images on the new forms need the same treatment actually! :)



      The alias's could be removed but Phil would need to create an "upgrade" agent to fix any forms using them. A little bit risky given the "plug-in" nature of RealWorkFlow.

      • naming conventions

        By Phillip A Kahrl 2 decades ago

        Yes, I should have started and stuck with a more uniform naming convention from the beginning. The question at this points is how to do it without losing backwards compatibility with applications that have already been written. It's certainly something I'll look into.

        • one thing to aliases...

          By Mark Teichmann 2 decades ago

          why only use aliases where it is absolutely needed? I propose that all forms and views get an alias regardless if the alias matches the name of the design element or not e.g. rwf States|rwfStates, rwfMyView|rwfMyView…



          It is easier to maintain if all views and forms have aliases.

    • Please provide final comment on naming conventions.

      By Phillip A Kahrl 2 decades ago

      OK, I'm working on standardizing the names of everything now. The convention will be "rwf" + for all forms view and subforms.



      The view names will be:



      rwfStates

      rwfConfiguration

      rwfNotifications

      rwfSubscriptions

      rwfExceptions



      rwfApproval Delegation



      There are 2 old names referenced in the engine code "rwf States" and "rwf Approval Delegation" that will be deprecated. That means if you have views with the old names, everthing will still work, you will just get a warning in the form of an RWFException telling you to use the view name. In some future version the old names will be removed altogether, but by then everyone should have had sufficient warning to update the view names.



      Forms:



      rwfEmailNotice

      rwfException

      rwfMailConfig

      rwfStateConfiguration

      rwfSubscription

      rwfNewsletterConfig



      Of these, the changes are as follows: The aliases for 'rwfStateConfiguration' which were "State" and "State Configuration" have been removed. The view selection for the "rwfStates" view has been changed so that form = "State" is no longer used. This should have no affect on existing apps.



      The alias for "rwfMailConfig", "mailConfig" has also been removed but is still used in the view selection for "rwfSubscriptions".



      Subform "rwf workflow" is Now "rwfWorkflow" with alias "rwf workflow" this should work for any forms using a computed subform.



      So the Question is this:



      Since all forms and views no longer need aliases can we get rid of aliases altogether or should we use aliases that are the same as the name? I'm prone to NOT use aliase at all for forms and views.



      Feedback appreciated.

      • Looks good

        By Colin Williams 2 decades ago

        Looks good to me. I work in a similar manner with Alias' - don't use them unless neccessary (eg, Memo forms etc).



        On these lines, I've renamed all the images used on the forms to follow a similar naming scheme. I will bundle these and the UI fixes up and send them over tomorrow evening so you can include them in your next release.

        • Naming convention for images, framesets, etc.

          By Phillip A Kahrl 2 decades ago

          Colin,



          In the 3 beta release I didn't include any of the images, framesets or pages in the actual template, but instead included them with the sample application. My thinking was that I want to keep the template as lean as possible and include only the design elements that are essential to make an application work. On that note, I'm not sure if the images need to follow the same naming convention.


          • Phil
          • By Colin Williams 2 decades ago

            Yes, I understood where you were coming from with only including the essential elements in the release. The only issue is that on the rwf… forms, the images are essentially required otherwise the forms look broken. Therefore I thought it best to at least rename those particular image elements.



            Entirely up to you of course!