← Back to team overview

gtg-contributors team mailing list archive

Re: Data model revisions

 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:59:45 -0400, Paul Natsuo Kishimoto
<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I just dumped my follow-up analysis of the GTG data model on l.g.o:
> 
>               http://live.gnome.org/gtg/DataModel/Analysis


Very very good. I like that analysis.

I completely agree with adding the  duration field (even if I believe it
should not be displayed by default in the UI but, instead, should be part
of a "Project Management" plugin). I personnaly don't like the priority
field as I believe it clutters the UI for nearly no information and I
really feel that it's there everywhere for historical purpose.

What I'm sure is that we don't want the GTK UI to display the priority.
That's something that was one of the basics of GTG when we started it.
Don't mess with artificial priorities : it simply add workload on the user.
The Now, Soon and Later just provide the required information. 

Can't we just have optionnal custom fields, just like tags have ? Would
that be enough ? Maybe it would not be a good idea as every UI will add
it's own custom fields and we will end with no compatibility between UI.

In fact, I would simply pass the handling of priorities to the backend.
The backend then only have to choose wheter it does something or if it maps
priorities to Now, Soon and Later.


> For those who didn't catch it, this follows on the comparison with other
> tools & models, which you can also find from:
> 
>                   http://live.gnome.org/gtg/DataModel
> 
>   To summarize, I considered ten potential changes to the model that
> would bring it more in line with other tools. In the end, I came up with
> three key changes:
> 
>      1. Add an (optional) priority field.
>      2. Add an (optional) duration field.
>      3. Remove the task ID field.

I think Luca is right here. Don't remove the ID field but make it
universal (should be straightforward). He's already working on this.  But,
indeed, the UUID should be removed.




References