Thanks Ed. I have created a
wiki
page for this and linked that to the review column in the
v3
functional spec page.
Admin Console got reviews from all the assigned reviewers now !!
A big thanks to everyone who provides comments and feedbacks.
Thanks
Anissa.
Ed Burns wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:46:06 -0700, Anissa Lam <anissa.lam@oracle.com> said:
AL> http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=GF3.1AdminConsoleOnePager
2.2 Risks
The Admin Console will be using the Woodstock components, a JSF
component set. Since this is an unsupported product, the GUI team has
created a branch for our own use and maintains it. It is assumed that
this version will not have major fault that prevents the Admin Console
from utilizing it or spend significant time in maintaining
it. Although we would prefer to use ADF Faces components, they are
unavailable to us due to licensing restrictions.
If you are going to use the latest JSF targeted for inclusion in 2.1
itself for your JSF runtime, please account for performing qualification
testing of the Admin Console, and Woodstock on that version.
3.2 Justification
The Admin Console was well received by the community and often viewed
as a differentiator from other similar products in the market. For
GlassFish 3.1, we need to continue to provide to the user this user
friendly administration tool.
I'd go beyond what you said. Not only do we need to continue to provide
it, but we need to give them somethng more in some way. Perhaps
explicitly state that we'll avoid flashy UI gimmics in favor of solid
Computer Human Interaction based ui design improvements. I know I'm
getting ahead of myself here, but I'd love to see a "type ahead find"
feature like the "/" find in mozilla, except that in the admin gui, the
type ahead find takes you right to the part of the UI you're trying to
access without expanding menus and navigating controls.
4.4 Out of Scope
Because we talked about this at the kickoff meeting, I think it's really
imperative to list "migrate to ADF Faces" as out of scope. I know you
briefly mention it in the "risks" section, but it should be listed as
out of scope as well.
You should also list "chef style instance management" as out of scope.