Lingo-ology

I love Components! It’s the perfect word.

Jeff, I defintely think we’ll keep filtered views of components, and hopefully with mulitple ways to look at them: by functions (dynamic, templates, "chunks", plugins, etc.), by heirarchy (all these components make up the WebuserLogin module), and and by arbitrary user tags.


Great ’storming guys... Raymond, you on board?

Here’s what I think?

There should be only two types of Plugins (or Components) - HTML and PHP. From this group you’ll be able to create what was know as snippets, chunks and plugins. PHP based plugins will all have event options.

Something else just came to mind... Why not call them Widgets?

We could have HTML Widgets and PHP Widgets. These same widgets can be used for rendering the ouput of a CF. I think we can accomplish this by create an event that will allow the wigdet to process the output of a CF when linked to a CF.

For example the Widget can render a content field’s output via the OnRenderContentField event

This would then mean that a wigdet can be used standalone or linked to some other system object or resource

What do you think?

I’m completely OK with widgets and think it could work. I’ll summarize again everything and get it here. I like "components" but I think I like "widgets" even better. (it is, after all, shorter/less )

Once you shake the never made public "widget" name for our was-gonna-be-widgets name and realize that they’re actually plugin widgets with the onRenderContentField event checked.

Excellent suggestion Raymond!

I’m not against the name "widgets". However, what are we going to call what widgets are now? They’re a pretty important part of what makes up template variables. And, well...although we could have "plugin widgets", "snippet widgets", and so on, I’m not sure how a layman might perceive the name "widgets". One of the things that I really think we should think about is the use of very common names for the different parts of the CMS. Here’s my reasoning:

Jeffrey Veen did an article on his site about the state of the most popular CMS’. He tried different ones and gave his opinion about what his reaction was to them from a sort of layman’s point of view. His reaction to Mambo was alot like mine: "What the F$%K is a Mambot?!" One of the suggestions he made was for CMS developers to stay away from buzzwords and stick to descriptions to items that have more semblance and make more sense to a layman.

So...on that note...think about which one makes more sense when you first see the word: "widgets" or "components". Now, in regards to template variables, the term "widget" works ok because by definition a "widget" is "A small mechanical device or control; a gadget". Definitely describes what a widget is in relation to template variables. In terms of a collection of plugins, templates, template variables, snippets, and so forth, I think calling these "components" makes more sense. An individual "component" could be considered an "elements". All in all, the terms we use need to make sense at first glance to the laymen who is using the CMS.

Just something to think about.

Good insight Jeff an something to ponder. Although I do think "widget" doesn’t fall anywhere near the level of ridiculousness as "mambot".

"Widgets" (and related terms) are becoming common thanks to Apple, Yahoo and Microsoft. To me that stand for just a small "something" that performs a pretty specific function.

IMO Widgets should not be used to replace templates. A template is a template not a widget.

If chosen the name "Widget" would be standard throught the system. There will not be any "plugin widget", "snippet widget" or "chunk widget." The names plugins, snippets and chunks will all be replaced with Widgets be it static or dynamic.

Widgets can be viewed as "a small mechanical devices or controls; gadgets" that can be made to listen to system events, act as part of a web page or linked to other resources (e.g. Content Fields).

For example [[WidgetA]] when used inside a web page will display "Hello World" but the same widget can also be made to listen to other system events or linked to a Content field. In each situation it will behave differently. It’s one resource with multiple functionality.

from the look of things there will be two major types of objects (be it widgets/components/plugins):

1) Dynamic (PHP)
2) Static (HTML/XML/Text)

Where Static Widgets can be viewed as:

1) HTML
2) XML
3) Text

These static objects can have semi-dynamic parts. That is they can accept parameters but will not execute php code or listen to events.

For example:

[[Paragraph? &color=`#FF0000` &size=`10pt`]]

[[WebForm? &action=`[~20~]`]]

Quote from: xwisdom at Nov 10, 2005, 08:18 AM

IMO Widgets should not be used to replace templates. A template is a template not a widget.

It the interface I agree with you. I think that people understand templates and that they shoudl stay very similar to the way they are now.

However, form a programming aspect, templates and static widgets/chunks are virtually the same thing. The only difference is that Templates need to be categorized differently for the sake of UI. So I think we can combine them in the code but keep them separate in the UI.

Combine code. Explain separate. All good.