search

merkle-open / aem-generic-multifield

Generic Multifield component dialog extension for AEM
MIT License
15 stars 6 forks source link

Comparison with OOTB composite multifield #32

Closed kwin closed 8 months ago

kwin commented 4 years ago

As AEM has composite multifield support since AEM 6.3 I am wondering when this approach should be used over plain https://helpx.adobe.com/experience-manager/6-3/sites/developing/using/reference-materials/granite-ui/api/jcr_root/libs/granite/ui/components/coral/foundation/form/multifield/index.html?

Do you have a comparison somewhere with some guidelines when to use which?

mkiti commented 4 years ago

Hello Konrad, there is currently no overview available that compares the ootb multifield with the generic multifield. The generic multifield allows to include a complete dialog within a dialog. That means your included dialog can consist of multiple tabs (including richtext and asset upload fields). I think with the ootb multifield you quickly reach the limits because it displays everything on one tab.

I guess if you have few coral fields with only a few data items then the ootb multifield is preferable. If you expect a lot of corla fields and a higher number of data items then the Generic Multifield is more clear for the content editor.

Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Konrad Windszus < notifications@github.com>:

As AEM has composite multifield support since AEM 6.3 I am wondering when this approach should be used over plain https://helpx.adobe.com/experience-manager/6-3/sites/developing/using/reference-materials/granite-ui/api/jcr_root/libs/granite/ui/components/coral/foundation/form/multifield/index.html ?

Do you have a comparison somewhere with some guidelines when to use which?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/namics/aem-generic-multifield/issues/32, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAZ7CDKT6ZQTWQQEGG7YLF3RKYBMNANCNFSM4L4GLCMQ .

kwin commented 4 years ago

Thanks for that answer, would be helpful to mention that in the readme. My main concern though is that the persistence format is different (for no obvious reason). I would appreciate a flag which would allow storing in the same format as the OOTB granite multifield, so that you can easily switch from one to the other without enforcing a content migration!

mkiti commented 4 years ago

The Generic Multifield has been around since AEM 6.0 (and earlier in CQ5 classic ui) and thus before the ootb Multifield existed in this form. This is certainly one reason why the persistance format is different. Introducing a flag is one way to control this. Thanks for your feedback

mkiti commented 4 years ago

I have just tried out to use a data structure generated by generic multifield with the ootb mulifield. I used a simple link list with title, link and caption field. At least for this case it was no problem to use both solutions.