Temporarily revert one part of the multiple url support in the last release. Non...

[git.ikiwiki.info.git] / doc / plugins / contrib / album / discussion.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn
index 156cd7ad8b861baeaf115d573ae86599ea0f3ac6..0356860d8302389156a6b0a2d639645284dd8570 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn
@@ -46,6 +46,10 @@ secondly: barring the CGI interface for editing the album, which would be great,
 >
 > --[[smcv]]
 
 >
 > --[[smcv]]
 

+>> In the current version of the branch, the viewer pages are
+>> generated automatically if you didn't generate them yourself,
+>> so `ikiwiki-album` is no longer needed. --[[smcv]]
+

 i'm new to ikiwiki, apologies if this is dealt with elsewhere.  -brush
 
 > This plugin is pretty ambitious, and is unfinished, so I'd recommend
 i'm new to ikiwiki, apologies if this is dealt with elsewhere.  -brush
 
 > This plugin is pretty ambitious, and is unfinished, so I'd recommend


@@ -60,7 +64,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 * Needing to create the albumimage "viewer" pages for each photo
   seems like it will become a pain. Everyone will need to come up
   with their own automation for it, and then there's the question
 * Needing to create the albumimage "viewer" pages for each photo
   seems like it will become a pain. Everyone will need to come up
   with their own automation for it, and then there's the question

-  of how to automate it when uploading attachments.
+  of how to automate it when uploading attachments. -J

 
 > There's already a script (ikiwiki-album) to populate a git
 > checkout with skeleton "viewer" pages; I was planning to make a
 
 > There's already a script (ikiwiki-album) to populate a git
 > checkout with skeleton "viewer" pages; I was planning to make a


@@ -69,11 +73,24 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 > on the implementation). I agree that this is ugly, though. -s
 
 >> Would you accept a version where the albumimage "viewer" pages
 > on the implementation). I agree that this is ugly, though. -s
 
 >> Would you accept a version where the albumimage "viewer" pages

->> could be 0 bytes long, at least until metadata gets added? -s
+>> could be 0 bytes long, at least until metadata gets added?
+>>
+>> The more I think about the "binaries as first-class pages" approach,
+>> the more subtle interactions I notice with other plugins. I
+>> think I'm up to needing changes to editpage, comments, attachment
+>> and recentchanges, plus adjustments to img and Render (to reduce
+>> duplication when thumbnailing an image with a strange extension
+>> while simultaneously changing the extension, and to hardlink/copy
+>> an image with a strange extension to a differing target filename
+>> with the normal extension, respectively). -s
+
+>>> Now that we have `add_autofile` I can just create viewer pages
+>>> whenever there's an image to view. The current version of the
+>>> branch does that. -s

 
 * With each viewer page having next/prev links, I can see how you
   were having the scalability issues with ikiwiki's data structures
 
 * With each viewer page having next/prev links, I can see how you
   were having the scalability issues with ikiwiki's data structures

-  earlier!
+  earlier! -J

 
 > Yeah, I think they're a basic requirement from a UI point of view
 > though (although they don't necessarily have to be full wikilinks).
 
 > Yeah, I think they're a basic requirement from a UI point of view
 > though (although they don't necessarily have to be full wikilinks).


@@ -85,10 +102,12 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 >> (Unless you use img to make the thumbnails for those links, then it
 >> would rebuild the thumbnails anyway. Have not looked at the code.) --[[Joey]]
 
 >> (Unless you use img to make the thumbnails for those links, then it
 >> would rebuild the thumbnails anyway. Have not looked at the code.) --[[Joey]]
 

+>>> I do use img. -s
+

 * And doesn't each viewer page really depend on every other page in the
   same albumsection? If a new page is added, the next/prev links
   may need to be updated, for example. If so, there will be much
 * And doesn't each viewer page really depend on every other page in the
   same albumsection? If a new page is added, the next/prev links
   may need to be updated, for example. If so, there will be much

-  unnecessary rebuilding.
+  unnecessary rebuilding. -J

 
 > albumsections are just a way to insert headings into the flow of
 > photos, so they don't actually affect dependencies.
 
 > albumsections are just a way to insert headings into the flow of
 > photos, so they don't actually affect dependencies.


@@ -117,7 +136,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 >>> have no idea what it depends on until the rebuild phase. -s
 
 * One thing I do like about having individual pages per image is
 >>> have no idea what it depends on until the rebuild phase. -s
 
 * One thing I do like about having individual pages per image is

-  that they can each have their own comments, etc.
+  that they can each have their own comments, etc. -J

 
 > Yes; also, they can be wikilinked. I consider those to be
 > UI requirements. -s
 
 > Yes; also, they can be wikilinked. I consider those to be
 > UI requirements. -s


@@ -127,19 +146,26 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
   album, but then anyone who can write to any other page on the wiki can
   add an image to it. 2: I may want an image to appear in more than one
   album. Think tags. So it seems it would be better to have the album
   album, but then anyone who can write to any other page on the wiki can
   add an image to it. 2: I may want an image to appear in more than one
   album. Think tags. So it seems it would be better to have the album

-  directive control what pages it includes (a la inline).
+  directive control what pages it includes (a la inline). -J

 
 > I'm inclined to fix this by constraining images to be subpages of exactly
 > one album: if they're subpages of 2+ nested albums then they're only
 > considered to be in the deepest-nested one (i.e. longest URL), and if
 > they're not in any album then that's a usage error. This would
 
 > I'm inclined to fix this by constraining images to be subpages of exactly
 > one album: if they're subpages of 2+ nested albums then they're only
 > considered to be in the deepest-nested one (i.e. longest URL), and if
 > they're not in any album then that's a usage error. This would

-> also make prev/next links sane.
->
+> also make prev/next links sane. -s
+
+>> The current version constrains images to be in at most one album,
+>> choosing one arbitrarily (dependent on scan order) if albums are
+>> nested. -s
+

 > If you want to reference images from elsewhere in the wiki and display
 > them as if in an album, then you can use an ordinary inline with
 > the same template that the album would use, and I'll make sure the
 > If you want to reference images from elsewhere in the wiki and display
 > them as if in an album, then you can use an ordinary inline with
 > the same template that the album would use, and I'll make sure the

-> templates are set up so this works.
->
+> templates are set up so this works. -s
+
+>> Still needs documenting, I've put it on the TODO list on the main
+>> page. -s
+

 > (Implementation detail: this means that an image X/Y/Z/W/V, where X and
 > Y are albums, Z does not exist and W exists but is not an album,
 > would have a content dependency on Y, a presence dependency on Z
 > (Implementation detail: this means that an image X/Y/Z/W/V, where X and
 > Y are albums, Z does not exist and W exists but is not an album,
 > would have a content dependency on Y, a presence dependency on Z


@@ -149,6 +175,12 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 > subpages of the album, although that would mean breaking some URLs
 > on the existing website I'm doing all this work for... -s
 
 > subpages of the album, although that would mean breaking some URLs
 > on the existing website I'm doing all this work for... -s
 

+>> The current version of the branch doesn't have this restriction;
+>> perhaps it's a worthwhile simplification, or perhaps it's too
+>> restrictive? I fairly often use directory hierarchies like
+>> `a_festival/saturday/foo.jpg` within an album, which makes
+>> it very easy to write `albumsection` filters. -s
+

 * Putting a few of the above thoughts together, my ideal album system
   seems to be one where I can just drop the images into a directory and
   have them appear in the album index, as well as each generate their own wiki
 * Putting a few of the above thoughts together, my ideal album system
   seems to be one where I can just drop the images into a directory and
   have them appear in the album index, as well as each generate their own wiki


@@ -156,7 +188,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
   etc. (Real pity we can't just put arbitrary metadata into the images
   themselves.) This is almost pointing toward making the images first-class
   wiki page sources. Hey, it worked for po! :) But the metadata and editing
   etc. (Real pity we can't just put arbitrary metadata into the images
   themselves.) This is almost pointing toward making the images first-class
   wiki page sources. Hey, it worked for po! :) But the metadata and editing

-  problems probably don't really allow that.
+  problems probably don't really allow that. -J

 
 > Putting a JPEG in the web form is not an option from my point of
 > view :-) but perhaps there could just be a "web-editable" flag supplied
 
 > Putting a JPEG in the web form is not an option from my point of
 > view :-) but perhaps there could just be a "web-editable" flag supplied


@@ -186,6 +218,10 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 >> upload-and-rename.
 >> -s
 
 >> upload-and-rename.
 >> -s
 

+>>> I believe the current branch meets your requirements, by having
+>>> first-class wiki pages spring into existence using `add_autofile`
+>>> to be viewer pages for photos. -s
+

 > In a way, what you really want for metadata is to have it in the album
 > page, so you can batch-edit the whole lot by editing one file (this
 > does mean that editing the album necessarily causes each of its viewers
 > In a way, what you really want for metadata is to have it in the album
 > page, so you can batch-edit the whole lot by editing one file (this
 > does mean that editing the album necessarily causes each of its viewers


@@ -205,6 +241,9 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 >> (That's apparently good enough for Bugzilla, but not really
 >> for ikiwiki). -s
 
 >> (That's apparently good enough for Bugzilla, but not really
 >> for ikiwiki). -s
 

+>>> This is now in the main page's TODO list; if/when I implement this,
+>>> I intend to make it a specialized CGI interface. -s
+

 >> Yes, [all metadata in one file] would make some sense.. It also allows putting one image in
 >> two albums, with different caption etc. (Maybe for different audiences.)
 >> --[[Joey]]
 >> Yes, [all metadata in one file] would make some sense.. It also allows putting one image in
 >> two albums, with different caption etc. (Maybe for different audiences.)
 >> --[[Joey]]


@@ -220,7 +259,8 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 
 ----
 
 
 ----
 

-Trying to use the "special extension" design:
+'''I think the "special extension" design is a dead-end, but here's what
+happened when I tried to work out how it would work. --[[smcv]]'''

 
 Suppose that each viewer is a JPEG-or-GIF-or-something, with extension
 ".albumimage". We have a gallery "memes" with three images, badger,
 
 Suppose that each viewer is a JPEG-or-GIF-or-something, with extension
 ".albumimage". We have a gallery "memes" with three images, badger,


@@ -350,6 +390,10 @@ underlay, so that photos don't have to be in your source-code control
 > Replying to myself: perhaps best done as an orthogonal extension
 > to attach? -s
 
 > Replying to myself: perhaps best done as an orthogonal extension
 > to attach? -s
 

+> Yet another non-obvious thing this design would need to do is to find
+> some way to have each change to memes/badger._albummeta show up as a
+> change to memes/badger in `recentchanges`. -s
+

 Things that would be nice, and are probably possible:
 
 * make the "Edit page" link on viewers divert to album-specific CGI instead
 Things that would be nice, and are probably possible:
 
 * make the "Edit page" link on viewers divert to album-specific CGI instead