[Registry-dev] Aspects UI

[chanaka jayasena]

Hi Glen,

Glen Daniels wrote:
> Oh also - I'm assuming "Aspect1" and "Aspect2" are just static test 
> values, right Chanaka?  We need to hook this up for real...
>
> I just noticed that there wasn't actually a method to get the 
> available aspect names...(!)  There is now, so please use 
> Registry.getAvailableAspects() to obtain the names for the UI?  I'll 
> work with you to test it.
Yes. I use the given method to fill the aspects list menu. But the 
Registry.getAvailableAspects() seems be returning an empty string array.
>
> Thanks,
> --Glen
>
> Glen Daniels wrote:
>> Hey folks!
>>
>> I think the Aspects UI is pretty close, but we need to do a few 
>> tweaks to avoid confusion and make things a bit clearer.
>>
>> - Change "Lifecycles" to "Aspects" at the top
Done
>>
>> - (this is a more general issue) We really do need to do something 
>> about the "+" and "-" thing.  It's confusing which "+" is which.  I'd 
>> suggest we get rid of the "expand/collapse" buttons (the white ones) 
>> entirely, and have the expand/collapse function controlled by 
>> clicking on the header bar itself for the given pane.  Then it's 
>> clear that the green "+" means "add" and not "expand".
>>
This is a very good suggestion. But there is a simple problem with the 
UI to implement this from the DHTML side. I will try to find some 
workaround for this.
>> - Change "assign" to "associate" to be consistent with the API methods
>>
>> - Change "Available Aspects" to "Aspect Actions"
>>
>> - Get rid of the "Available Actions" box (it takes up too much room)
>>
>> - Make the Aspect list itself work like a one-level tree control. 
>> Replace the blue squares to the left of each Aspect with standard 
>> tree expanders (unless an Aspect has no actions).  When in the 
>> expanded state, each Aspect's actions are buttons underneath the 
>> Aspect name.
Done
>>
>> I think that should do it for this release.  In the next release we 
>> can start to focus on customizing the UI for individual Aspects.
>>
>> That all make sense?  Comments?

Thanks,
Chanaka