Bootstrap 5 coming?

[mark]

I’m new to AppGini and Bootstrap but have learned enough to see that Bootstrap 3.3.x is two major releases behind version 5.

Is there a future release of AppGini that will use a newer Bootstrap version?

Also, are there tutorials available on heavy customization of an AppGini app?

I’m wanting a sidebar for nav instead of the top bar. I’d also like to use a different, more modern look for home screens and table and record views.

TIA

[a.gneady]

Yes, Bootstrap 5 is planned for future releases. We plan to first restructure the files to implement separate views to make this upgrade more streamlined. For customization tutorials, please see: https://bigprof.com/appgini/help/advanced-topics/

[jmcgov]

Ah, good to hear and maybe timely for something Im planning. Do you have rough timelines in mind, Ahmed?

[jmcgov]

Nay thoughts?

[jmcgov]

*Any thoughts (did I say nay!)

[a.gneady]

Hopefully before this year end. I've made it a top priority due to popular demand and users feedback

[saymaad]

That's great news, if we can have Field-Based Security with this update as well, could be a killer Christmas combo

[jsetzer]

@BigProf:
When migrating to B5 please use the extended version including jQuery an not the standard vanilla version, because we have thousands of lines of code using jQuery.

Also, can you please consider removing the $j = jQuery.noConflict() setting, because this brings so many conflicts when trying to integrate with 3rd party libraries, for example with VUE or certain jQuery-plugins which rely on $.

[jmcgov]

That's great news, if we can have Field-Based Security with this update as well, could be a killer Christmas combo

Oh man, I don't know if all that could fit in one Christmas stocking

[saymaad]

Hopefully before this year end. I've made it a top priority due to popular demand and users feedback

Should we keep our hopes high to see a Bootstrap 5 and Field-Based Security (hook implementation as mentioned in another post) before year end Ahmed?

That's great news, if we can have Field-Based Security with this update as well, could be a killer Christmas combo

Oh man, I don't know if all that could fit in one Christmas stocking

fingers crossed man... maybe the year will end with a bang...

[sacgtdev]

Outdated bootstrap is one the items listed in my penetration test's result.
Does anyone know whether Appgini will upgrading the libraries such as Bootstrap, Select2, MomentJS?

[a.gneady]

Outdated bootstrap is one the items listed in my penetration test's result.
Does anyone know whether Appgini will upgrading the libraries such as Bootstrap, Select2, MomentJS?

Bootstrap 5 is on top of our roadmap for 2025. I'll also consider other libraries to see if upgrading doesn't break things.

[jmcgov]

Hi Ahmed
Nice to see v25 out today with great enhancements, thanks, but also wondering is there any timeline or similar for BS5?
Very best
James

[jsetzer]

For discussion:
Instead of talking about Bootstrap 5, wouldn't it be better to talk about a more future-safe variant based on chosable templates for header.php and footer.php?

I think if AG switches to Bootstrap 5 next weeks or months, we will have exactly the same discussions in a couple of months from now concerning a follow-up version of Bootstrap 5 or even a different framework like Tailwind or Materialize.

Instead, if we had a configurable set of templates for (a) the main page layout (b) for layout elements like columns, panels etc. and (c) for input controls like <input/>, <select/> this would open up many more options for the future.

In my perfect world I imagine AppGini rendering a plain, almost class-less HTML page which then will be modified by CSS and Javascript of a selected framework. What I mean is: If we select Bootstrap 3, for example, the associated Javascript will change, for example, all <input/> to <input class="form-control" />, depending on the selected framework's requirement and specification. This is just one example.

If there was a subdirectory per supported framework, for example frameworks/bootstrap/v3 and frameworks/bootstrap/v5 we could have HTML-templates for elements similar to current TV-/TVS-/DV-/DVP-templates in templates-subdirectory. While rendering PHP/HTML, AppGini could replace placeholders like <%%FIELDSET%%>, <%%FIELD(name)%%>, <%%LABEL(name)%%>, <%%INPUT(name)%%> etc. by the associated HTML-template of the selected framework. This would not only allow switching to Bootstrap 5 but also to other frameworks. Additonally, this would allow adding and/or overriding generation of HTML-Code for input controls etc.. We could add custom buttons, have more input controls like Rating, Range, Color-Picker, Date-Period, Year-Selector, Custom Dropdowns etc. just by adding/changing templates or downloading existing templates from a 3rd party vendor.

As HTML-Templates and <%%VARIABLE%%>-placeholder-replacements are quite static, a different but also future-safe approach would be having base (abstract) Renderer-classes for Page and inherited classes for HomePage, TableViewPage, DetailViewPage, LoginViewPage, CustomPage etc.), then renderers for DetailViewFieldset, TableViewTable etc.. Generated code could call the rendering()-method of main PageRenderer-object. Then, renderer could recursively call rendering()-methods of child-elements like navbar, sidebar, header, footer, button-bars, contents. Having such rendering-classes would allow inheritance which then would allow us to override rendering()-methods for table-rows, fields, inputs etc.. Also in this approach we could download and use 3rd-party-renderers for any element of any page.

---

I know it would be easier for BigProf to just replace static Bootstrap3-rendering by static Bootstrap5-rendering. But I'm pretty sure the additional effort for a flexible solution will pay off after next framework-version-update.

Just my 2 cents.

[jmcgov]

Good post. I suppose I asked for BS5 as it was previously mooted and would resolve an issue for me. I expect the switch over to any 'design modernisation' solution will be a massive investment for Ahmed and owners of existing apps, and could recur within a small number of years. So I 100% agree - definately merits a conversation, and obviously at AGs low price point, expectations need to be tailored. That said, and I think you agree, a spruce up is needed, especially for public facing apps.

[jmcgov]

Also, your concept solution makes sense, although BS5 might be more in keeping with 'ready out of tin' approach