[MGNLUI-1714] Should we use (simple) namespaces for app ids? Created: 09/Oct/12 Updated: 28/Jun/13 Resolved: 28/Jun/13 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Magnolia UI |
| Component/s: | app framework |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 5.0 |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Neutral |
| Reporter: | Andreas Weder | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | bookmark | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Template: |
|
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
| Task DoD: |
[ ]*
Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]*
Downstream builds green?
[ ]*
Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]*
Tests
[ ]*
FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ] 
Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
|
| Description |
|
While reading the "location, location, location" section in the chapter on building apps of the evolving Magnolia 5 book, it occurred to me that we could save us some hassle with non-unique app ids, if we'd introduce (simple) namespaces. Wouldn't it be helpful to reserve the "mgnl" prefix for us and then change the URLs to become, e.g.: #app:mgnl-pages:editor;/mypath/topage:preview or #shell:mgnl-pulse:inbox ? That way we could ensure that, should someone indeed unknowingly re-use an already used app id such as "pages" or "contacts", Magnolia would still come up and work properly. Plus, such a change would also lower the entry barrier as I'd expect such errors to be hard to find for Magnolia beginners, even if we show a message in the log files. We could even go as far and use the same namespace also for sub-app ids. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Andreas Weder [ 09/Oct/12 ] |
|
Removed wiki syntax from within wiki {code} blocks. |