26 Aug
2015
26 Aug
'15
5:36 p.m.
I don't really understand the solution 2.
We already have an EntityReference class in entityReference.js, with a
string serializer and a string parser.
If we use a JSON format to describe a reference, we will still have to
parse it to create an EntityReference object, and this parser does not
exist yet.
So what is the benefit?
I only see drawbacks:
- A JSON reference is a lot more verbose.
- From the java side, we need to serialize the reference to a JSON
representation which is probably more costly than serializing to a string.
- We use string representations in a lot of places, and suddenly we should
use JSON but only when we do JavaScript...
So +1 for the solution 1.
In any case, it seems a good idea to use references in JS code.
Thanks,
Guillaume
2015-08-06 14:25 GMT+02:00 Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>om>:
I agree with Thomas that it would be best to use
EntityReference -> JSON as
much as possible (when passing the reference from velocity to javascript,
server-side), however, man times when you need a reference you also end up
building a new reference (on the client-side, i.e. javascript) so we can`t
really avoid having a strong javascript EntityReference API +
serializer/resolver.
Also, making a HTTP request from JS to resolve a string reference on the
server (and getting a JSON result) is not really an option IMO (specially
if you do that a lot).
So +1 to using reference in javascript code.
Thanks,
Eduard
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
wrote:
> Direct EntityReference -> JSON serialisation would provide a strong
> standard (we already have tool to make sure we never break
> EntityReference) and it would make JS and Java sides more consistent.
> Now In some cases we will still need to support parsing a String
> reference in JS I think.
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:38 AM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net
>
wrote:
> > Hi Marius/all,
> >
> > On 30 Jul 2015 at 10:26:49, Marius Dumitru Florea (
> mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com))
wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Another option could be to pass a JSON serialization of the reference.
> >> Thomas has recently fixed some issues that were preventing JSON
> >> serialization of an entity reference. It should work fine now:
> >>
> >> $jsontool.serialize($documentReference)
> >>
> >> should produce something close to:
> >>
> >> {
> >> name: 'Page',
> >> type: 'DOCUMENT',
> >> parent: {
> >> name: 'Space2',
> >> type: 'SPACE',
> >> parent: {
> >> ...
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> It's more verbose obviously. For this we need to modify a bit
> >> entityReference.js though, because it expects the entity type to be an
> >> int.
> >
> > Indeed there are only 2 global solutions:
> > * Solution 1: Pass the seralized String reference and have the js
> perform the resolve. This also means that the java code may need to do a
> serialize. So this has the drawback of doing a serialize + resolve. It
has
the advantage of being a one-liner from JS.
> * Solution 2: Pass the individual elements of a reference so that the
JS
doesn’t have to call resolve. This can be done in
several ways:
level.
option 1:
<div class=“metadata”>
<div class=“sourcewiki”>wiki</div>
<div class=“sourcepage”>page</div>
<div class=“sourcespaces”>
<div>space1</div>
<div>space2</div>
</div>
</div>
option 2:
The JSON you suggest above. However, how would the java code pass this
into HTML?
Inside a tag’s text, as in:
<div class=“metadata”>
… json here?...
</div>
Inside a <script> tag directly?
Note that option2 has a big advantage over option 1: JS knows JSON
natively and
thus there’s no need to implement any parsing at the JS >
> Compared to Solution 1, the advantage would to avoid a resolve() call
on
the JS side. On the java side we’ll still need
the serialize() call
(which
will possibly take slightly longer than the
string serialization).
>
> Overall Solution 2/option2 could be a better solution indeed.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Thanks,
>> Marius
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:34 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>> > Hi devs,
>> >
>> > In the past we use to pass the wiki, space and page as 3 variables
to
JS code. For example in dashboard.js we currently
have:
reference,
> >
> > this.sourcePage = this.element.down('.metadata
.sourcepage').innerHTML;
> > this.sourceSpace =
this.element.down('.metadata
.sourcespace').innerHTML;
> > this.sourceWiki =
this.element.down('.metadata
.sourcewiki').innerHTML;
> >
> > Now that we need to handle Nested Spaces, it’s more complex and I’m
proposing to change our best practice and instead to pass a full as in:
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
> > this.sourceReference =
XWiki.Model.resolve(this.element.down('.metadata .source').innerHTML,
XWiki.EntityType.DOCUMENT);
> >
> > More generally the idea would be to do the same as we do in Java
code,
i.e. to start stopping passing several parameters to functions and
instead to use XWiki.EntityReference (or XWiki.DocumentReference, etc).
> >
> > For example for dashboard.js this allows to replace:
> >
> > var link = new Element('a', {'href' : this.sourceURL});
> > link.update(this.sourceWiki + ':' + this.sourceSpace + '.' +
this.sourcePage);
>
> With:
>
> var link = new Element('a', {'href' : this.sourceURL});
> link.update(XWiki.Model.serialize(this.sourceReference));
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs