Gramps Web is currently filed on the Gramps-Project.org Wiki in an “Addon” category but that is not accurate.
By convention, we have every addon’s wiki page title with an “Addon:” prefix. What other Naming Convention can we use to prefix such independent projects that use either the Gramps Engine or Gramps format data
It consists of two components: a RESTful API that provides access to Gramps family trees and a web front-end. From a user perspective, it’s probably just another front-end much like the GUI and command line interface.
I also note that the wiki page describes Gramps Web as “a separate project based on the same code base as Gramps Desktop.” This is not particularly helpful. I can see where the confusion may arise though. Gramps Web has a separate web site for it’s documentation, uses a different bug reporting system, and communications such as release announcements are not made on the mailing lists or blog.
Perhaps we need to think about how we can better integrate Gramps Web into our ecosystem? @bmatherly Do you have any views on this?
… and for those note so familiar with it, technically it has three components, the third component being the Gramps Python library itself. I think that’s what’s meant in the Wiki by “same code base”, but I agree this Wiki article could use some rewriting.
The reports have: report_modes The report modes: list of REPORT_MODE_GUI ,REPORT_MODE_BKI,REPORT_MODE_CLI
Does there need to be a Gramps Plugin Registration option for Gramps Web so that it will be able to use the Addon Manager? And does it need to be recognized as the current GUI by the cli module?
@DavidMStraub Can Gramps Web currently use CLI commands for Reports with REPORT_MODE_CLI compatibility?
I would answer “no” to all of these questions. I don’t think it makes sense treating Gramps Web (or even Gramps Web API) as a plug-in in the current framework. I also don’t see the benefit.
When it comes to better integrating Gramps Web [API] into the Gramps ecosystem, what I would rather be thinking about is moving some of the code from the gramps_webapi Python module into the gramps library. But that would only make sense if the Gramps library had a (much) shorter release cycle and stricter Python version requirements. And I understand why this is problematic from a Gramps [desktop] point of view.
From a user perspective, I think what matters is integration with addons, and there I think the situation is not so bad:
I wasn’t suggesting making Gramps Web into a plug‐in. I was talking about making plug‐ins have a way to register that they are also compatible with Gramps Web… or ONLY compatible with Gramps Web!
If the idea is to give Gramps Web parity with the Gtk GUI or the CLI frontends, then it probably needs a way to identify plug-in (both for the built-in and add-on) compatibility in the same system.