>>> I'll try to file down the edges and put a patch
>> I do like we can navigate this tree stuff - but feels more like a
>> raw "debugging" tool
>> rather than one to actually show content in a user understandable
That problem can certainly be addressed. One of the the things that would improve things
would be to add a label/icon extension where the "raw" names could be replaced
with something more user friendly. Also, I think the "Attributes" node should
be replaced by a property page.
>> i.e. instead of having existing deployment's buried
>> root/deployment/* I would
>> expect that as a higher level node at a more accessible level.
> That root node simply serves to separate this information from
> other information in the tree. I don't see any reason why that
> node couldn't be eliminated from the view.
well then we would expose this "raw" view top nodes fully into the
server view - it would be very noisy IMO.
Don't you think having the root node is a good thing for the "full
raw" stuff ?
Actually, I don't mind the current layout. I think better icons, labels and moving
attributes to a property page would go a long way toward sprucing it up. Filters can be
used to prune out really low-level stuff (e.g. Extensions).
> Regarding my planned work for SwitchYard, I was thinking about
> modifying the way the "root" is initialized so that another root
> path could be specified (e.g. /subsystem=switchyard as opposed to
sure - except that still will expose things 'raw' …. but sure, it
could be a nice to have.
Yes, but nothing forces me to use the existing tree structure. Child content can easily
be replaced with a more knowledgeable model.
> I was also thinking "attributes" might be better
displayed in the
> properties view, since some property types may be more
> sophisticated than a simple literal. It also cleans up the tree a
Yes, fully agreed.
>> …not sure how to link the current list of deployments together
>> the actual existing ones..maybe have those
>> we don't have knowledge about being greyed out or something?
> It would probably make more sense to grey out the items that are
> published through the workspace, since they are already visible in
> the view.
Well the items visible now doesn't really have a natural link to them
…. besides their file name.
Leave them all. I don't really think it matters.
WDYT? is the problem of overshadowing jars overrated?
See separate response.