First time I see plug-in authoring term in jQuery docs: http://docs.jquery.com/Plugins/Authoring
What is "plugin authoring"? How is it different from "plug-in development", "plug-in tutorial", "plug-in architecture"?
In http://docs.jquery.com/Talk:Plugins/Authoring written:
It might be better to rename this page as 'Plugin Development' or use another common dev-word instead of 'Authoring'. I feel the same about the navigation. 'Authoring' is a creative alternative, but not really preferred. Am I the only one?
I would tend to agree
Yes, I would agree that "Plugin Development" might be a better alternative to "Authoring." Do you think it's causing some confusion right now? That would be the biggest reason for change, in my opinion.
Related
I'm playing with Joomla 2.5.9 (The latest 2.X download). Do you know how you can add additional menu's to the "Article Manager: Edit Article" page? (This is in the Administration)
Their API gives me some hint on several things but I am don't know what this right "Slide Down Option Area" is called in the Administration.
In the right area there are things such as:
Publishing options
Article Options
Configure Edit Screen
Images and Links
etc..
I want to know where to start to add my own, or where they are already built in the system so I can base mine off it -- Is this a plugin, module, or something else? :)
As i say don't change any of the core file in Joomla. If you want to add any functionality into the article manager you can make your own plugin to add functionality in it. For doing this see this link :
Creating a content plugin
I hope this is what you looking for.Good luck.
There are some extensions that allow you to do that.
I recommend (although somewhat buggy and a code mess) this one:
FieldsAttach
It does exactly what you want.
Or, you could make your own as Toretto suggests, there are some tutorials on creating a plugin for extra items in the article form, but the already-made-extension route seems to make more sence.
I've been using FieldsAttach for this sort of thing, for a few years, the code is often a little messy, that is true, but the the concepts are clean and eloquent. Brian Teeman explains it well from an integrator point of view in his talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2WLKWbRj5U but in some ways it is even more compelling from a developer's perspective.
However, after watching Marco Ding's Joomla Day UK 2016 talk on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDh1IPuZAVA I think DPFields may be a better choice. The architecture is perhaps more rugged and neater, but also because it may well end up being a core extension in Joomla in the near future. More info on DPFields is at http://extensions.joomla.org/extension/dpfields , https://joomla.digital-peak.com/products/dpfields and https://joomla.digital-peak.com/documentation/162-dpfields .
I was wondering if you know any tools that help keep track of "code smells". So that team members could report some finding in the code and then possibly vote on the most problematic ones (in terms of future project development).
Any experiences?
Have you looked at find bugs or check style? Both of these are pretty good for this.
I would also recommend pmd. These let you analyse common problems such as not setting method parameters final.
Lastly, I'd recommend using Sonar as this will highlight any code errors in order of priority. Such as code that is knowingly going to through a NPE, it will highlight this to you and can be integrated with Jenkins.
All these together can really help you move towards the "Clean Code" mantra.
Is Dojo's load-as-you-need it structure actually a performance improvement? For me, at least?
My company's website is going to switch to IBM Websphere, which primarily uses Dojo. My company's very concerned with page performance, mostly in terms of "seconds to page load". As a result of that, the directive we've been given is "minimize hits to the server", so with our current website we aggregate all our .js files before the promotion to production.
But that directive is basically becoming Law, now, so if I were to argue against it, I would need a very good rationale for it. I've been unable to find anything in favor of the load-as-you-go method except "it's a good idea" and "loads only when you need it" (the latter is really only based on the former, as far as I can tell).
And then, if I were to flatten everything out into a single file, I wouldn't be able to use dojo.require() statements at all, would I? (the idea being, if I could have the development side split by module to make the organization more rational, but then have the production version a single file, but then dojo.require() would no longer make sense there, and then I have an increasingly complex situation where I would need the build to do some invasive things to the javascript to package for production.)
Please resist the "it depends" answer. The best practices docs I've seen (Yahoo, Google, etc) pretty much just say "reduce page loads" and don't have much "it depends" about it. But Dojo's framework seems so definitive about its approach, I'm wondering if there's a more persuasive argument for it.
Dojo actually combines the two approaches. In development mode, you have many files that use define (dojo.require is obsolete) to load other modules dynamically. This is very good for abstraction and development.
Then there is "production mode", where you compile all those small files into one or more (aka. layers) minified Javascript files with the dojo build system. This reduces hits to the server while still maintaining all the modularity. With the layer approach, application data that is needed later will automatically be loaded from a separate file.
See:
http://dojotoolkit.org/blog/learn-more-about-amd
http://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/1.7/build/
I need a tracker, but more specific a tracker for UI issues. An alternative to JIRA o PivotalTracker. I need to post some screenshots, and make annotations on them. I need basically a practical tool for report UI bugs. Anny suggestion?
Thanks in advance
You might also have a look at JIRA in combination with the screen-sniper plugin
https://plugins.atlassian.com/plugin/details/19613
Almost all tools allow you to attach files. Many show graphics files in-line. Choose any of those.
Someone on here recently recommended BWToolkit, and it really impressed me, so I started googling for more IB plug-ins. I've found a couple on random blogs, but haven't been able to find any kind of repository/aggregator for them. Anyone know where I can find more of these?
Thanks.
I just created a page on CocoaDev to list them [edit: question originally just said “Interface Builder plug-ins”, did not mention Cocoa frameworks], with the two I know of listed.
Well that's a good start. I guess that wiki page is the de-facto repository, for now. Seems like there's not much out there.
You are not looking for Interface Builder plug-ins. You think you are, but you aren't. BWToolkit, the example you use in your question, is not an Inteface Builder plug-in. Brandon bills it as an Interface Builder plug-in but it is actually a framework and a plug-in. The framework contains the actual controls. The plug-in contains the integration with Interface Builder.
So really, what you are looking for are frameworks that contain or provide Interface Builder plug-ins. I have changed your question to reflect that, so it is more likely to be found by people using Google to search for similar things in the future.
I know what I am looking for. Not all frameworks contain IB plugins. I am looking for a specific subset of frameworks, those which contain IB plugins. An IB-plugin without a framework is useless, therefore the framework part is assumed. I am NOT looking for regular old frameworks, so stop trying to change my question to that. Your additions only seem to be confusing people.
I have reported your post, hopefully moderators will be able to stop your obnoxious behavior.
"Without a framework, what would you have to plug in to IB?"
Your words, not mine. Anyways, I'm done arguing this with you. Just remember that I can roll back for every time that you edit.
It's clear you have a lot of experience in this field, but instead of offering answers you decided to nitpick where there are no nits to pick.
Additionally, you have not "changed the question to refelct that," you have changed the question to a completely different question. I would have though that after four rollbacks you would relaize that you're doing more harm than good. Just stop, okay?
Of course, Chris Hanson is absolutely correct when he says that an Interface Builder plugin is useless without an accompanying framework. Interface Builder merely provides a graphical way to manage objects in a framework; without the framework itself, Interface Builder has nothing to manage.
However, I do think that there is a completely valid sort of Interface Builder plugin that wouldn't necessitate the installation of an accompanying framework, and that would be one that provides Interface Builder integration features for objects in Cocoa/Cocoa Touch which would otherwise appear as just generic objects.
For those of you who come to this page Google, please recognise the difference between Interface Builder plugins and frameworks: even the examples mentioned above work on frameworks (they could be Foundation, AppKit, UIKIt, etc.)