E.g. Why is the FCKeditor not used when I post a message in the forums. Is that because of the use of BBCode or is the loading time to large? If it's the loading time, then a modular editor will solve this.
Initially I liked the idea of MooTools, "great!, I can get just what I want and nothing more!"
But quickly I realized that I needed that code, and the other one also, and all that bunch. I liked a code in one page, and guess what? besides all the code that I did already downloaded I needed to add other components. And I was lost, I really didn't know the components that I needed because you have to write them down by yourself.
If the core is too light, then you end up with a useless core. Yes, now the "editor" will be very light, but it will need lots of effort to make it work.
I'm not saying NO to make it more based on plugins, indeed there are some tasks that would have been easier for me if I did change the core files, but I think that it's better to put the code only where it's needed, so they end up being part of the plugins.
Maybe instead of the server page to choose what to download, it would be better to download always the full package and then being able to "compile" your own editor. Just like the FCKpackager does right now, but including some UI in order to remove everything that isn't needed and select which plugins you want to use (but based on your own copy and keeping a reference of the options that you used the last time)
The problem with MooTools is that they are a JavaScript library, used for programming. And we know well that, in programming, things just happen while coding.
In our case, things are much more tangible, like form fields support, templates, color selectors, node path selector, "no toolbar" (!), etc... So, this little funny tool would makes more sense.
My idea and focus is to make such a possible tool "usable". For example:
Provide "pre-built" packages, with the most common setups.
Include a file in the build that can be reused to the previously selected components.
Actually, as you have also indicated, I think it will be more feasible to have this thing as an application to run locally, and we would probably have it anyway.
I agree with you alfonsoml, you do need to know what you have to download. But I find that you bring it to negative. I have a quite good understanding if what pieces I need to get my mootools script running with the least amount of code, but that can be quite difficult at first indeed...
So to help users when they don't yet know what they need, several 'profiles' should be provided and also a download all or check all button to be able to get everything. Providing pre-built" packages could help minimize the server load if the script that assembled the download will be heavy. Or the advantage of "pre-built" packages could be just that they can be hosted on mirrors, which might not be possible with pieces that need to be assembled.
I also don't think this is a big issue. I mean with FCK you have a toolbar where you see all the features you like. There just has to be a mechanism that checks for dependancies...
Maybe a crazy idea: I heard that javascript can rewrite itself or its functions and that there is server-side javascript, I think "Rhino". Would it be possible to let the user download an optimized version, exaclty fitted to his plugins/needs? Eg. instead of checking if this or that option is needed it would rewrite itself with that options already included and other options and if-statements already removed.
Re: Voting for core functionality or making the editor modular
Re: Voting for core functionality or making the editor modular
And yes, an editor "builder", like the Mootools download page is planned. Not sure we'll be able to handle it at our server though.
Frederico Knabben
CKEditor Project Lead and CKSource Owner
--
Follow us on: Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn
Re: Voting for core functionality or making the editor modular
But quickly I realized that I needed that code, and the other one also, and all that bunch. I liked a code in one page, and guess what? besides all the code that I did already downloaded I needed to add other components. And I was lost, I really didn't know the components that I needed because you have to write them down by yourself.
If the core is too light, then you end up with a useless core. Yes, now the "editor" will be very light, but it will need lots of effort to make it work.
I'm not saying NO to make it more based on plugins, indeed there are some tasks that would have been easier for me if I did change the core files, but I think that it's better to put the code only where it's needed, so they end up being part of the plugins.
Maybe instead of the server page to choose what to download, it would be better to download always the full package and then being able to "compile" your own editor. Just like the FCKpackager does right now, but including some UI in order to remove everything that isn't needed and select which plugins you want to use (but based on your own copy and keeping a reference of the options that you used the last time)
Re: Voting for core functionality or making the editor modular
The problem with MooTools is that they are a JavaScript library, used for programming. And we know well that, in programming, things just happen while coding.
In our case, things are much more tangible, like form fields support, templates, color selectors, node path selector, "no toolbar" (!), etc... So, this little funny tool would makes more sense.
My idea and focus is to make such a possible tool "usable". For example:
Actually, as you have also indicated, I think it will be more feasible to have this thing as an application to run locally, and we would probably have it anyway.
Frederico Knabben
CKEditor Project Lead and CKSource Owner
--
Follow us on: Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn
Re: Voting for core functionality or making the editor modular
I have a quite good understanding if what pieces I need to get my mootools script running with the least amount of code, but that can be quite difficult at first indeed...
So to help users when they don't yet know what they need, several 'profiles' should be provided and also a download all or check all button to be able to get everything.
Providing pre-built" packages could help minimize the server load if the script that assembled the download will be heavy. Or the advantage of "pre-built" packages could be just that they can be hosted on mirrors, which might not be possible with pieces that need to be assembled.
Re: Voting for core functionality or making the editor modular
http://extjs.com/download/build
Frederico Knabben
CKEditor Project Lead and CKSource Owner
--
Follow us on: Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn
Re: Voting for core functionality or making the editor modular
Maybe a crazy idea: I heard that javascript can rewrite itself or its functions and that there is server-side javascript, I think "Rhino". Would it be possible to let the user download an optimized version, exaclty fitted to his plugins/needs? Eg. instead of checking if this or that option is needed it would rewrite itself with that options already included and other options and if-statements already removed.