3 Apr
2015
3 Apr
'15
10:18 p.m.
Hi Edy,
I don’t enough about requirejs to make an educated answer on this part so my answer is
only about the new proposed format.
PROs:
* possibly a bit better for end users
CONs:
* not restful (I think)
* we mix the resource name with the rest of the URL (semantic mixing)
* by mixing the resource name with the rest of the URL we need to reparse the URL to
reconstruct the resource name
Let me give more information by what I mean on these last 2 points. Right now when we have
a URL our ExtendedURL class parses the URL by parsing the path portions and storing them
into a List.
So if we have http:////path1/path2/path3, we get [“path1”, “path2”, “path3]. If we wish to
get the resource name we need to [“path1”, “path2”, “path3].join(“/“).
In addition I also find it more logical that the resourcename be a BLOB for which we don’t
know the structure (whether it’s separated by “/“ or “.” or anything else, we shouldn’t
care about). The way we load the resource is by doing a
ClassLoader.getResourceAsStream(resourceName). Said differently it’s by pure chance that
we have both “/“ for loading a classloader resource and as a separator for a URL!
So I don’t want to block your proposal but it’s seems we’re mixing apples and oranges and
I’m not sure it’s a good thing.
I’m curious to know what others think.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 3 Apr 2015 at 18:39:09, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) wrote:
Hi,
Currently, the webjars URL mapping is the following:
http://localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/webjars/resources/path?value=
%2F%2F
Example:
$services.webjars.url('codemirror', 'lib/codemirror.js')
returns
http://localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/webjars/resources/path?value=codemirror%2F5…
The problem with this is that require modules that use relative paths for
their dependencies are broken because of the URL mapping we use, more
specifically by the "?" character inside the URL we use.
A concrete example is the CodeMirror webjar that defines its own modules
which express their dependencies relatively: "../../lib/codemirror"
Here we have a problem, since if we directly depend on
"$services.webjars.url('codemirror', 'mode/css/css.js')", the
module will
fail to find its relatively defined dependency.
One approach would be to define paths, so that requirejs can work its magic:
require.config({
paths: {
cm : "
http://localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/webjars/resources/path?value=codemirror%2F5…
"
}
});
require(["cm/lib/codemirror", "cm/mode/css/css"], function
(CodeMirror) {
console.log(CodeMirror);
});
This properly finds "/lib/codemirror.js" and "mode/css/css.js" that
we
explicitly request, however, the internal dependency of css.js fails to be
found at the resolved URL "
http://localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/webjars/resources/path?value=codemirror%2F5…
".
Requirejs does not add the ".js" extension to the resolved path because the
resolved path contains a "?" character so it is considered an absolute URL,
not a relative path.
The proposal is to stop using this URL mapping, since it is awkward to have
paths in parameters and, instead, use a more intuitive one that is both
good for clients and for requirejs.
The proposed mapping/scheme is:
http://localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/webjars///
Any additional parameters that we might need for the webjars action would
be appended at the end. There is currently 1 case that I know of, which is
"evaluate=true|false".
Without this change, I can not find any solution to using a webjar such as
CodeMirror that uses relative defined modules.
Thanks,
Eduard
P.S.: Any additional advice on using requirejs to circumvent this
limitation is most than welcomed.