[xwiki-devs] How to best work with JavaScript in Syntax 2.0 macros
Hello all, I started working on a {{map}} macro (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784). This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps, etc.). The variants I've envisaged so far : 1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not very natural. 1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks. 2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element). For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short. The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only. 2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call) inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me know if it's a bad practice. 3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them). WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ? Regards, Jerome.
Hello, I used JSX to write a GoogleMap extension... My problem was the loading of the google entry library needed to get a reference to "google" object in javascript. How do you manage this without modifying the skin template? Actually, this was not possible with JSX because JSX is not able to manage external JS files as we have already explained in another mail. So I modified the Skin template which is not satisfying to me. Then, I also modified JSX to manage this in order to evaluate the idea and I find it much practical because I can lazily load any Javascript extension now and I don't fear security issues in my case because my site should be opened on internet... ;) Anyway, my googlemap extension was only javascript functions in JSX... I could have written a Velocity Macro but needed only some JS functions that I call in the middle of my XHTML/JS... Don't understand why you should write a real macro instead of a velocity? there is nothing to do on the server side for this, isn't it? Only some formatting of HTML/JS... regards Pascal On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
I started working on a {{map}} macro (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784). This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps, etc.).
The variants I've envisaged so far :
1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not very natural.
1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks.
2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element). For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short. The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only.
2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call) inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me know if it's a bad practice.
3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them).
WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ?
Regards, Jerome. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Pascal Voitot wrote:
Hello, I used JSX to write a GoogleMap extension...
My problem was the loading of the google entry library needed to get a reference to "google" object in javascript. How do you manage this without modifying the skin template?
Actually, this was not possible with JSX because JSX is not able to manage external JS files as we have already explained in another mail. So I modified the Skin template which is not satisfying to me. Then, I also modified JSX to manage this in order to evaluate the idea and I find it much practical because I can lazily load any Javascript extension now and I don't fear security issues in my case because my site should be opened on internet... ;)
Anyway, my googlemap extension was only javascript functions in JSX... I could have written a Velocity Macro but needed only some JS functions that I call in the middle of my XHTML/JS...
Don't understand why you should write a real macro instead of a velocity? there is nothing to do on the server side for this, isn't it? Only some formatting of HTML/JS...
For the two reasons I mentioned in the first mail : 1. Something like {{map location="10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" message="One of the XWiki offices"/}} is nicer and more explicit for the users of wiki editor than the following in velocity : {{velocity}}#map("10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" "One of the XWiki offices" "" "" "" ""){{/velocity}} 2. In velocity, we have to give a value (even empty one) for all parameters (I added above a lot of empty values just to show that if the macro supports many optional parameters, this is how the velocity call will look like). And I would add... 3. We can write unit tests/rendering tests for an actual XWiki Syntax 2.0 macro. This is another advantage, it will make it easier to add parameters or new implementations (viamichelin for example ;)) to the macro. Regards, Jerome.
regards Pascal
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
I started working on a {{map}} macro (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784). This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps, etc.).
The variants I've envisaged so far :
1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not very natural.
1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks.
2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element). For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short. The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only.
2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call) inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me know if it's a bad practice.
3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them).
WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ?
Regards, Jerome. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Pascal Voitot wrote:
Hello, I used JSX to write a GoogleMap extension...
My problem was the loading of the google entry library needed to get a reference to "google" object in javascript. How do you manage this without modifying the skin template?
Actually, this was not possible with JSX because JSX is not able to manage external JS files as we have already explained in another mail. So I modified the Skin template which is not satisfying to me. Then, I also modified JSX to manage this in order to evaluate the idea and I find it much practical because I can lazily load any Javascript extension now and I don't fear security issues in my case because my site should be opened on internet... ;)
Anyway, my googlemap extension was only javascript functions in JSX... I could have written a Velocity Macro but needed only some JS functions that I call in the middle of my XHTML/JS...
Don't understand why you should write a real macro instead of a velocity? there is nothing to do on the server side for this, isn't it? Only some formatting of HTML/JS...
For the two reasons I mentioned in the first mail :
1. Something like
{{map location="10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" message="One of the XWiki offices"/}}
is nicer and more explicit for the users of wiki editor than the following in velocity :
{{velocity}}#map("10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" "One of the XWiki offices" "" "" "" ""){{/velocity}}
yes this is not very nice :)
2. In velocity, we have to give a value (even empty one) for all parameters (I added above a lot of empty values just to show that if the macro supports many optional parameters, this is how the velocity call will look like).
And I would add...
3. We can write unit tests/rendering tests for an actual XWiki Syntax 2.0 macro. This is another advantage, it will make it easier to add parameters or new implementations (viamichelin for example ;)) to the macro.
but you have also to write and compile code where there is no real server code actually :) Anyway, I can understand your point of view! I agree for the other map providers... And your macro would create the div to embed the map also? you would not provide an option so that you can provide tell the macro to use a div you have created somewhere? Conclusion: write a real macro and let's see if this is not too heavy compared to a simple velocity one :)
Regards, Jerome.
regards Pascal
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello all,
I started working on a {{map}} macro (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784). This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps, etc.).
The variants I've envisaged so far :
1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not very natural.
1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks.
2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element). For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short. The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only.
2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call) inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me know if it's a bad practice.
3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them).
WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ?
Regards, Jerome. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hello Pascal, All, See below Pascal Voitot wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Pascal Voitot wrote:
Hello, I used JSX to write a GoogleMap extension...
My problem was the loading of the google entry library needed to get a reference to "google" object in javascript. How do you manage this without modifying the skin template?
Actually, this was not possible with JSX because JSX is not able to manage external JS files as we have already explained in another mail. So I modified the Skin template which is not satisfying to me. Then, I also modified JSX to manage this in order to evaluate the idea and I find it much practical because I can lazily load any Javascript extension now and I don't fear security issues in my case because my site should be opened on internet... ;)
Anyway, my googlemap extension was only javascript functions in JSX... I could have written a Velocity Macro but needed only some JS functions that I call in the middle of my XHTML/JS...
Don't understand why you should write a real macro instead of a velocity? there is nothing to do on the server side for this, isn't it? Only some formatting of HTML/JS... For the two reasons I mentioned in the first mail :
1. Something like
{{map location="10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" message="One of the XWiki offices"/}}
is nicer and more explicit for the users of wiki editor than the following in velocity :
{{velocity}}#map("10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" "One of the XWiki offices" "" "" "" ""){{/velocity}}
yes this is not very nice :)
2. In velocity, we have to give a value (even empty one) for all parameters (I added above a lot of empty values just to show that if the macro supports many optional parameters, this is how the velocity call will look like).
And I would add...
3. We can write unit tests/rendering tests for an actual XWiki Syntax 2.0 macro. This is another advantage, it will make it easier to add parameters or new implementations (viamichelin for example ;)) to the macro.
but you have also to write and compile code where there is no real server code actually :)
I tend to agree with your point, this is why I initially emitted the reserve in point 3. above. Now that I explored more that path and started to implement the macro, I think it worth it at the end. I am at a point where the macro is not aware of the underlaying implementation (google map, yahoo map, etc.) and where one can add an implementation just by registering and configuring a component in plexus.xml and write the javascript extension for that implementation in a wiki page (thus, not writing a single line of java code, and not having to recompile). What the macro does is to generate the JSX "use" calls (I currently generate a velocity macro for that, maybe I could directly call the jsx plugin, this is to be investigated further), and initialize a Javascript object (by generating a (x)html macro with a script tag). The abstraction of the implementation is currently realized using duck-typing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing). From the Javascript point of view, an implementation is then just the definition of an object that should implement as set of expected methods (2 for now), that will be properly documented. The registration of that implementation against the server in plexus.xml currently looks like the following : <component> <role>org.xwiki.rendering.map.MapProvider</role> <role-hint>google</role-hint> <implementation>org.xwiki.rendering.internal.map.DefaultMapProvider</implementation> <instantiation-strategy>singleton</instantiation-strategy> <configuration> <jsx>XWiki.GoogleMapsJSExtension</jsx> <constructor>XWikiGoogleMap</constructor> </configuration> </component> As we can see, the MapProvider component is in reality just a simple POJO which provides - The document name of the JSX page for that implementation - The constructor to use for that implementation (the name of the duck-typed object). I need that to be able to handle several kind of maps on the same document (meaning several JSX map implementations loaded). An alternative could be to have a convention for the object name, for example the page name of the jsx document. The main issue I faced while doing this was the loading of the JS library needed by the implementations themselves (the call the google maps/y! maps libraries). I really did not wanted to have this generated by the macro on the server side (even if the URL is retrieved from configuration, it would be not very flexible to handle URL parameters, for example to upgrade the version used, etc.), so I inspired from a trick I've seen used by several libraries : generating this on the client side, by the JSX itself, using document.write("<script>..."); I agree it is not the nicest thing to have, but I could not find a better alternative. Maybe somebody has a better idea for this.
Anyway, I can understand your point of view!
I agree for the other map providers...
And your macro would create the div to embed the map also? you would not provide an option so that you can provide tell the macro to use a div you have created somewhere?
Yes, this is possible already. If you precise a container node id in the macro parameters, this one will be used, otherwise, one will be created for you on the fly.
Conclusion: write a real macro and let's see if this is not too heavy compared to a simple velocity one :)
Conclusion: I will upload a first patch very soon on JIRA, so that this whole idea can be better reviewed :) We also have to think about a proper place for new macros. I developed this one in the rendering component, but it really don't think it's a proper place for it, especially since now there is a "wiki" part. I'm thinking about a xwiki-macros component, with components/ and wiki/ sub-modules. WDYT ? Regards, Jerome.
Regards, Jerome.
regards Pascal
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
I started working on a {{map}} macro (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784). This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps, etc.).
The variants I've envisaged so far :
1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not very natural.
1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks.
2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element). For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short. The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only.
2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call) inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me know if it's a bad practice.
3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them).
WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ?
Regards, Jerome. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hello Pascal, All,
See below
Pascal Voitot wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Pascal Voitot wrote:
Hello, I used JSX to write a GoogleMap extension...
My problem was the loading of the google entry library needed to get a reference to "google" object in javascript. How do you manage this without modifying the skin template?
Actually, this was not possible with JSX because JSX is not able to manage external JS files as we have already explained in another mail. So I modified the Skin template which is not satisfying to me. Then, I also modified JSX to manage this in order to evaluate the idea and I find it much practical because I can lazily load any Javascript extension now and I don't fear security issues in my case because my site should be opened on internet... ;)
Anyway, my googlemap extension was only javascript functions in JSX... I could have written a Velocity Macro but needed only some JS functions that I call in the middle of my XHTML/JS...
Don't understand why you should write a real macro instead of a velocity? there is nothing to do on the server side for this, isn't it? Only some formatting of HTML/JS... For the two reasons I mentioned in the first mail :
1. Something like
{{map location="10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" message="One of the XWiki offices"/}}
is nicer and more explicit for the users of wiki editor than the following in velocity :
{{velocity}}#map("10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" "One of the XWiki offices" "" "" "" ""){{/velocity}}
yes this is not very nice :)
2. In velocity, we have to give a value (even empty one) for all parameters (I added above a lot of empty values just to show that if the macro supports many optional parameters, this is how the velocity call will look like).
And I would add...
3. We can write unit tests/rendering tests for an actual XWiki Syntax 2.0 macro. This is another advantage, it will make it easier to add parameters or new implementations (viamichelin for example ;)) to the macro.
but you have also to write and compile code where there is no real server code actually :)
I tend to agree with your point, this is why I initially emitted the reserve in point 3. above.
s/above/below (in the initial mail)
Now that I explored more that path and started to implement the macro, I think it worth it at the end. I am at a point where the macro is not aware of the underlaying implementation (google map, yahoo map, etc.) and where one can add an implementation just by registering and configuring a component in plexus.xml and write the javascript extension for that implementation in a wiki page (thus, not writing a single line of java code, and not having to recompile). What the macro does is to generate the JSX "use" calls (I currently generate a velocity macro for that, maybe I could directly call the jsx plugin, this is to be investigated further), and initialize a Javascript object (by generating a (x)html macro with a script tag). The abstraction of the implementation is currently realized using duck-typing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing). From the Javascript point of view, an implementation is then just the definition of an object that should implement as set of expected methods (2 for now), that will be properly documented. The registration of that implementation against the server in plexus.xml currently looks like the following :
<component> <role>org.xwiki.rendering.map.MapProvider</role> <role-hint>google</role-hint>
<implementation>org.xwiki.rendering.internal.map.DefaultMapProvider</implementation> <instantiation-strategy>singleton</instantiation-strategy> <configuration> <jsx>XWiki.GoogleMapsJSExtension</jsx> <constructor>XWikiGoogleMap</constructor> </configuration> </component>
As we can see, the MapProvider component is in reality just a simple POJO which provides - The document name of the JSX page for that implementation - The constructor to use for that implementation (the name of the duck-typed object). I need that to be able to handle several kind of maps on the same document (meaning several JSX map implementations loaded). An alternative could be to have a convention for the object name, for example the page name of the jsx document.
The main issue I faced while doing this was the loading of the JS library needed by the implementations themselves (the call the google maps/y! maps libraries). I really did not wanted to have this generated by the macro on the server side (even if the URL is retrieved from configuration, it would be not very flexible to handle URL parameters, for example to upgrade the version used, etc.), so I inspired from a trick I've seen used by several libraries : generating this on the client side, by the JSX itself, using document.write("<script>..."); I agree it is not the nicest thing to have, but I could not find a better alternative. Maybe somebody has a better idea for this.
Anyway, I can understand your point of view!
I agree for the other map providers...
And your macro would create the div to embed the map also? you would not provide an option so that you can provide tell the macro to use a div you have created somewhere?
Yes, this is possible already. If you precise a container node id in the macro parameters, this one will be used, otherwise, one will be created for you on the fly.
Conclusion: write a real macro and let's see if this is not too heavy compared to a simple velocity one :)
Conclusion: I will upload a first patch very soon on JIRA, so that this whole idea can be better reviewed :) We also have to think about a proper place for new macros. I developed this one in the rendering component, but it really don't think it's a proper place for it, especially since now there is a "wiki" part. I'm thinking about a xwiki-macros component, with components/ and wiki/ sub-modules. WDYT ?
Regards, Jerome.
Regards, Jerome.
regards Pascal
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
I started working on a {{map}} macro (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784). This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps, etc.).
The variants I've envisaged so far :
1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not very natural.
1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks. 2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element). For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short. The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only. 2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call) inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me know if it's a bad practice.
3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them).
WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ?
Regards, Jerome. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hello Pascal, All,
See below
Pascal Voitot wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Pascal Voitot wrote:
Hello, I used JSX to write a GoogleMap extension...
My problem was the loading of the google entry library needed to get a reference to "google" object in javascript. How do you manage this without modifying the skin template?
Actually, this was not possible with JSX because JSX is not able to manage external JS files as we have already explained in another mail. So I modified the Skin template which is not satisfying to me. Then, I also modified JSX to manage this in order to evaluate the idea and I find it much practical because I can lazily load any Javascript extension now and I don't fear security issues in my case because my site should be opened on internet... ;)
Anyway, my googlemap extension was only javascript functions in JSX... I could have written a Velocity Macro but needed only some JS functions that I call in the middle of my XHTML/JS...
Don't understand why you should write a real macro instead of a velocity? there is nothing to do on the server side for this, isn't it? Only some formatting of HTML/JS... For the two reasons I mentioned in the first mail :
1. Something like
{{map location="10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" message="One of the XWiki offices"/}}
is nicer and more explicit for the users of wiki editor than the following in velocity :
{{velocity}}#map("10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" "One of the XWiki offices" "" "" "" ""){{/velocity}}
yes this is not very nice :)
2. In velocity, we have to give a value (even empty one) for all parameters (I added above a lot of empty values just to show that if the macro supports many optional parameters, this is how the velocity call will look like).
And I would add...
3. We can write unit tests/rendering tests for an actual XWiki Syntax 2.0 macro. This is another advantage, it will make it easier to add parameters or new implementations (viamichelin for example ;)) to the macro.
but you have also to write and compile code where there is no real server code actually :)
I tend to agree with your point, this is why I initially emitted the reserve in point 3. above. Now that I explored more that path and started to implement the macro, I think it worth it at the end. I am at a point where the macro is not aware of the underlaying implementation (google map, yahoo map, etc.) and where one can add an implementation just by registering and configuring a component in plexus.xml and write the javascript extension for that implementation in a wiki page (thus, not writing a single line of java code, and not having to recompile). What the macro does is to generate the JSX "use" calls (I currently generate a velocity macro for that, maybe I could directly call the jsx plugin, this is to be investigated further), and initialize a Javascript object (by generating a (x)html macro with a script tag). The abstraction of the implementation is currently realized using duck-typing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing). From the Javascript point of view, an implementation is then just the definition of an object that should implement as set of expected methods (2 for now), that will be properly documented. The registration of that implementation against the server in plexus.xml currently looks like the following :
<component> <role>org.xwiki.rendering.map.MapProvider</role> <role-hint>google</role-hint>
<implementation>org.xwiki.rendering.internal.map.DefaultMapProvider</implementation> <instantiation-strategy>singleton</instantiation-strategy> <configuration> <jsx>XWiki.GoogleMapsJSExtension</jsx> <constructor>XWikiGoogleMap</constructor> </configuration> </component>
As we can see, the MapProvider component is in reality just a simple POJO which provides - The document name of the JSX page for that implementation - The constructor to use for that implementation (the name of the duck-typed object). I need that to be able to handle several kind of maps on the same document (meaning several JSX map implementations loaded). An alternative could be to have a convention for the object name, for example the page name of the jsx document.
The main issue I faced while doing this was the loading of the JS library needed by the implementations themselves (the call the google maps/y! maps libraries). I really did not wanted to have this generated by the macro on the server side (even if the URL is retrieved from configuration, it would be not very flexible to handle URL parameters, for example to upgrade the version used, etc.), so I inspired from a trick I've seen used by several libraries : generating this on the client side, by the JSX itself, using document.write("<script>..."); I agree it is not the nicest thing to have, but I could not find a better alternative. Maybe somebody has a better idea for this.
Anyway, I can understand your point of view!
I agree for the other map providers...
And your macro would create the div to embed the map also? you would not provide an option so that you can provide tell the macro to use a div you have created somewhere?
Yes, this is possible already. If you precise a container node id in the macro parameters, this one will be used, otherwise, one will be created for you on the fly.
Conclusion: write a real macro and let's see if this is not too heavy compared to a simple velocity one :)
Conclusion: I will upload a first patch very soon on JIRA, so that this whole idea can be better reviewed :)
Done : http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784 Jerome.
We also have to think about a proper place for new macros. I developed this one in the rendering component, but it really don't think it's a proper place for it, especially since now there is a "wiki" part. I'm thinking about a xwiki-macros component, with components/ and wiki/ sub-modules. WDYT ?
Regards, Jerome.
Regards, Jerome.
regards Pascal
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
I started working on a {{map}} macro (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784). This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps, etc.).
The variants I've envisaged so far :
1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not very natural.
1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks. 2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element). For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short. The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only. 2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call) inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me know if it's a bad practice.
3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them).
WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ?
Regards, Jerome. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hello, just have seen your patch... can't test it now... Seems quite clever at first sight. Just try to make as simple as possible for end-users. Just some remarks... concerning the loading of the map libraries, you will do it with document.write("<script>...") in the JSX. Not very nice but what other solution? On my side, as I explained, I modified JSX to be able to add an external URL <script> in the page header... I found it elegant but I'm not sure you agree with that :) Finally, where is defined the URL of the map library including the API key and possible version? As soon as my test environment is back, I will test your patch! regards Pascal On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Pascal, All,
See below
Pascal Voitot wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Pascal Voitot wrote:
Hello, I used JSX to write a GoogleMap extension...
My problem was the loading of the google entry library needed to get a reference to "google" object in javascript. How do you manage this without modifying the skin template?
Actually, this was not possible with JSX because JSX is not able to manage external JS files as we have already explained in another mail. So I modified the Skin template which is not satisfying to me. Then, I also modified JSX to manage this in order to evaluate the idea and I find it much practical because I can lazily load any Javascript extension now and I don't fear security issues in my case because my site should be opened on internet... ;)
Anyway, my googlemap extension was only javascript functions in JSX... I could have written a Velocity Macro but needed only some JS functions that I call in the middle of my XHTML/JS...
Don't understand why you should write a real macro instead of a velocity? there is nothing to do on the server side for this, isn't it? Only some formatting of HTML/JS... For the two reasons I mentioned in the first mail :
1. Something like
{{map location="10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" message="One of the XWiki offices"/}}
is nicer and more explicit for the users of wiki editor than the following in velocity :
{{velocity}}#map("10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" "One of the XWiki offices" "" "" "" ""){{/velocity}}
yes this is not very nice :)
2. In velocity, we have to give a value (even empty one) for all parameters (I added above a lot of empty values just to show that if the macro supports many optional parameters, this is how the velocity call will look like).
And I would add...
3. We can write unit tests/rendering tests for an actual XWiki Syntax 2.0 macro. This is another advantage, it will make it easier to add parameters or new implementations (viamichelin for example ;)) to the macro.
but you have also to write and compile code where there is no real server code actually :)
I tend to agree with your point, this is why I initially emitted the reserve in point 3. above. Now that I explored more that path and started to implement the macro, I think it worth it at the end. I am at a point where the macro is not aware of the underlaying implementation (google map, yahoo map, etc.) and where one can add an implementation just by registering and configuring a component in plexus.xml and write the javascript extension for that implementation in a wiki page (thus, not writing a single line of java code, and not having to recompile). What the macro does is to generate the JSX "use" calls (I currently generate a velocity macro for that, maybe I could directly call the jsx plugin, this is to be investigated further), and initialize a Javascript object (by generating a (x)html macro with a script tag). The abstraction of the implementation is currently realized using duck-typing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing). From the Javascript point of view, an implementation is then just the definition of an object that should implement as set of expected methods (2 for now), that will be properly documented. The registration of that implementation against the server in plexus.xml currently looks like the following :
<component> <role>org.xwiki.rendering.map.MapProvider</role> <role-hint>google</role-hint>
<implementation>org.xwiki.rendering.internal.map.DefaultMapProvider</implementation> <instantiation-strategy>singleton</instantiation-strategy> <configuration> <jsx>XWiki.GoogleMapsJSExtension</jsx> <constructor>XWikiGoogleMap</constructor> </configuration> </component>
As we can see, the MapProvider component is in reality just a simple POJO which provides - The document name of the JSX page for that implementation - The constructor to use for that implementation (the name of the duck-typed object). I need that to be able to handle several kind of maps on the same document (meaning several JSX map implementations loaded). An alternative could be to have a convention for the object name, for example the page name of the jsx document.
The main issue I faced while doing this was the loading of the JS library needed by the implementations themselves (the call the google maps/y! maps libraries). I really did not wanted to have this generated by the macro on the server side (even if the URL is retrieved from configuration, it would be not very flexible to handle URL parameters, for example to upgrade the version used, etc.), so I inspired from a trick I've seen used by several libraries : generating this on the client side, by the JSX itself, using document.write("<script>..."); I agree it is not the nicest thing to have, but I could not find a better alternative. Maybe somebody has a better idea for this.
Anyway, I can understand your point of view!
I agree for the other map providers...
And your macro would create the div to embed the map also? you would not provide an option so that you can provide tell the macro to use a div you have created somewhere?
Yes, this is possible already. If you precise a container node id in the macro parameters, this one will be used, otherwise, one will be created for you on the fly.
Conclusion: write a real macro and let's see if this is not too heavy compared to a simple velocity one :)
Conclusion: I will upload a first patch very soon on JIRA, so that this whole idea can be better reviewed :) We also have to think about a proper place for new macros. I developed this one in the rendering component, but it really don't think it's a proper place for it, especially since now there is a "wiki" part. I'm thinking about a xwiki-macros component, with components/ and wiki/ sub-modules. WDYT ?
Regards, Jerome.
Regards, Jerome.
regards Pascal
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
I started working on a {{map}} macro (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784). This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps,
etc.).
The variants I've envisaged so far :
1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it
in
Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not very natural.
1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks.
2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element). For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short. The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only.
2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call) inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me know if it's a bad practice.
3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them).
WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ?
Regards, Jerome. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi, On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
I started working on a {{map}} macro (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784). This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps, etc.).
The variants I've envisaged so far :
1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not very natural.
1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks.
2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element). For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short. The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only.
2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call) inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me know if it's a bad practice.
3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them).
WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ?
IMO JSX should be a component supporting loading jar/fs resources files and not only wiki pages. In your case you would ask JSX to use a provided resource URL (or even better a list of JSXSource containing : [WIKIJSXSource, URLJSXSource] to first try wiki then the defaut js you provide to be able to overload it in the wiki). So I would say : 4. load you js from resource file and insert it as XMLBlock (you don't need to cut it in Word/SpaceBlock, you just create a "scrip" XMLBlock and set you whole js as the String content of the XMLBlock) waiting for JSX to support it.
Regards, Jerome. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
participants (3)
-
Jerome Velociter -
Pascal Voitot -
Thomas Mortagne