Uploader API need Review

Eli Cochran eli at media.berkeley.edu
Mon Apr 27 16:30:45 UTC 2009


I appreciate your comments. I was reaching for a distinction between  
easily and commonly edited options and those that you wouldn't edit  
unless you were making a fundamental shift in the underlying  
functionality of the component. But now I see it as a failed experiment.

> That said, I'm wondering if perhaps the our API documentation should  
> be treated as reference documentation: a comprehensive view of the  
> features offered by a component. Our tutorials, on the other hand,  
> would be the place where users are guided through standard and   
> simple ways of using a component.

I think that this is right on the money. I'll switch it back.

But in case you're still curious, my rational was the options that you  
would need to edit to modify the UI should be in the common category.  
Both totalProgressBar and focusWithEvent fall into this camp. While,  
as we defined them currently, fileQueueView and decorators are pretty  
much functional. But this is really a false separation, especially  
since we're talking about pushing the configuration options for  
FileQueueView into the set up for Uploader, just as they are for  
totalProgressBar. So that was the distinction -- again, not a great one.

Thanks for the feedback.

- Eli

On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Colin Clark wrote:

> Eli,
>
> I'm confused by an apparent inconsistency in the way you've chosen  
> to distinguish between "general" and "advanced" options. You've put  
> two of the subcomponent configuration options, fileQueueView and  
> decorators, in the Advanced section. But then you have other similar  
> options, totalProgressBar and focusWithEvent, which you've left in  
> the general section. Any particular reason?
>
> In general, a user won't need to worry about any subcomponent- 
> related configuration options unless they do one of two things:
>
> 1. Change the default template and want to rebind their selectors
> 2. Create their own alternative implementations of a subcomponent
>
>
> If you do think there's a good motivation for distinguishing between  
> general and advanced options, we should have a clear criteria for  
> each category, and do this consistently across our documentation.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Colin
>
> On 23-Apr-09, at 9:07 PM, Eli Cochran wrote:
>
>> I've added some missing options to the Uploader API document and  
>> improved the section on running locally.
>>
>> One of the things that I did was pull two of the options into a  
>> separate section called advanced options. But I'm not sure about  
>> it. I would love someone to give it a review.
>>
>> http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Uploader+API
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eli
>>
>> . . . . . . . . . . .  .  .   .    .      .         .              .                     .
>>
>> Eli Cochran
>> user interaction developer
>> ETS, UC Berkeley
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________
>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>
> ---
> Colin Clark
> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
> http://fluidproject.org
>

. . . . . . . . . . .  .  .   .    .      .         .              .                     .

Eli Cochran
user interaction developer
ETS, UC Berkeley





More information about the fluid-work mailing list