Page History

...

Requirements

There's general consensus about the following:

[Magnolia needs] a formal definition for a type of content [...] including the fields that type may contain, and its relationships to other types of content.
Based on this definition, other things can be created with little or no work such as a content app, an editing dialog, and REST endpoints.

—via Content Types

...

Initial action plan / Spike 0

Based on a registry on one hand, and starting off with a field-based model on the other hand, we could start implementing a minimal user story with few concrete actions.

Status

PRs were created, yet they're not deemed to be in a "productized" state atm. Still a bit too reminiscent of the previous PoC efforts.

1. Configuration

Registry

At this stage, the format does not matter as much as what we're going to do with it.
It's also unclear why our YAML format should be considered a misfit—we've been pushing it all around the place—or for what use cases it falls short, concretely.

...

Should we hit the wall with the registry or format, and get an alternative on par with benefits above, nothing is set in stone. It just allows us to move on with downstream technical challenges.

Status

CT01. Pick ContentTypeRegistry + ContentTypeDefinition into a new module

...

• data source (envisioning an evolution of content-connectors, without the Vaadin bits)
  • kind
  • coordinates
  • workspace / table / collection name
  • node types
• model / fields
  • relationships, 1-to-1, 1-to-many, etc.
  • evolution, content version-handling
• locales
  
  • see

    Jira
    server Magnolia - Issue tracker columns key,summary,type,created,updated,due,assignee,reporter,priority,status,resolution serverId 500b06a6-e204-3125-b989-2d75b973d05f key MGNLUI-3616

• folder-support
• tagging
• versioning
• publication
• personalization
• renditions / URI bindings / previews
• cache policies
• naming / id strategy
• ownership model / security
• consistency model
  • all consistent against latest schema (hence content migration)
  • vs. mixed-model version w/ compatibility
• ...

2. Fields

...

...

Modeling

As foreseen, content-types are shifting upstream of apps, that is upstream of any UI/UX consideration.

...

Again, nothing set in stone. This in turn helps progressing towards generation of content apps and endpoints.

Status

We start simple, with a plain map of named fields. We make FieldDefinitions less UI/UX-bound / more UI-agnostic.

...

• Support semi-structured content types (leveraging the content-editor)
• Defining & resolving references to other content-types (leaving linking out first)
• Groups of fields and/or 1:n relationships

...

UI bits

In addition to making fields more UI-agnostic, we seek to maintain presentation flexibility on app & form level.

...

• ditch TabDefinitions in favor of an optional layout config

3. Data source

CT21. Reuse automatic workspace creation

...

• experimented in Sang's PoC, via plain contentType reference id

Status

To be discussed / defined.

4. Content apps

App generation

We seem to have consensus against re-introducing definition builders maintained by hand (like those we reverted before 5.0)

• A. Either verbosely build/nest configured definitions w/ plain constructors (no new def code)
• B. And/or we give a shot at leveraging Sasha's code-generation efforts for this

Status

CT23. Generate apps on-the-fly, upon app startup

...

• yet to formalize config patterns, actions, columns, labelling...
• crud, publishing, import-export
• different stock apps have different flavors of actionbar section availability
• even the groovy generator is not fully "canonical", vs. M5 UX guidelines

Status

To be formalized.

Under the radar

• Composing mixin configuration defaults per content-types capabilities

5. Consuming content

REST endpoint defaults

Status

We have a productized, JCR-based, basic delivery endpoint. Currently this is just one "global" endpoint, taking the workspace name as path parameter.
Therefore at the moment, there's no such thing as one endpoint per content type (might come again later), so nothing extra to register.

...

• Side-by-side endpoint implementations for CT-based vs. JCR-based.
• Single endpoint registrations (more content-semantic APIs than with the generic one)

Initial action plan / Spike 0

Based on a registry on one hand, and starting off with a field-based model on the other hand, we started implementing a minimal user story with few concrete actions.

Status

...