Subject: Re: [cells-devel] Booyah!! openair off the ground
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: VM 8.0.9 under Emacs 22.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Ken Tilton writes:
> andy wrote:
> > > >> I just wanted to see it working before reading up on aserve's
> > > >> webobjects and adding support for them so kenny can see this in
> > > >> action.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK, so I should wait?
> >
> > Yeah. I'm working on that now so I'll let you know later this
> > goes.
Mmm. Not going too well here. webactions seems to require something
called :sock that doesn't appear anywhere on cliki.net. Does this
come pre-installed with allegro?
> Cool. I am working on Cells.js. :)
> > How about xref, or just ref.
>
> Awesome. I kept thinking "xref" but I kept worrying about a clash, altho
> I think it was href I remembered.
>
> It is so much fun doing this without a clue on the domain (and the more
> I look at it the less I feel bad about having missed all this <g>).
>
> > I don't think the name matters really
> > much since xml has namespaces to avoid collisions. We just put it in
> > the http://openair.net/ (or whatever) namespace.
>
> Ah, snazzy.
>
> >
> > I'm going to read through the previous stuff you've posted about
> > lookups since I'm still not clear about how it would work. Here's my
> > understanding at the minute. Does it sound ok?
> >
> > All the actual xml would have to be stored somewhere, presumably a
> > javascript associative array. Then, whenever something is sent to the
> > browser, we find all xlookup elements and replace them with their
> > associated content.
>
> Yep. I am hoping that when you said the "x" was for extensible that this
> will work.
>
> The crazy thing is that where browsers cache pages and images and other
> things we are taking caching to a new (is it new?) level.
google does a fair amount of clever stuff with javascript. I'm sure
there must be some fairly advanced caching going on there.
> I mentioned GC being a concern. Possibly we have a fallback mechanism if
> we screw that up whereby xref can -- should something requested not be
> found -- make one last try by asking the server. Of course I am hoping
> the existing not-to-be mechanism will let us keep the client-side
> dictionary (where xref looks, the js associative array) tidy, but a few
> lines of code for a fallback might be smart.
>
> Or am I being silly about even needing GC? Well, if we are building RIAs
> then we might well end up with users hanging out for a long time on the
> same page -- that by the way is me guessing the dictionary will get
> tossed when they leave a page. Getting ahead of myself as usual...
I've heard of cases where it isn't. Not quite sure how that happens
though. I think the GC is a good idea and it doesn't sound like it'll
be that hard.
> > > It occurs to me that this apropos example would benefit another way
> > from
> > > something like xlookup. Suppose can only guess a chunk of name that is
> > > very common, so there are a lot of matches. That's OK, now they just
> > > click various check boxes that limit the matching. But each time they
> > > click on a selection criteria a round-trip is needed to ask Common Lisp
> > > which symbols are, say, exported. Suppose a third are.
> > >
> > > Without xlookup, the xhtml for that one third must be resent. With
> > > xlookup, the parent just resends itself listing so many terse little
> > > xlookup tags. GC on the client side could be handled during "not-to-be"
> > > processing.
> >
> > Just to make sure I'm not missing anything, is the comparison below
> > what you consider the difference to be?
> >
> > <xlookup ref="s123">
> >
> > Here's the equivalent
> >
> > <li id="l123"><span id="s123">progv</span></li>
>
> No, but I am guessing it's a typo, you meant to compare with (using the
> burgeoining new name and throwing in another slash just to see if I am
> learning anything):
>
> <xref ref="l123"/>
You can now put XML on your resume :-)
> ie, it's the line that does not need resending -- in general, we want to
> go as high up as possible. In fact, technically that might be
> (introducing a syntax for email discussions in which dictionary entries
> are signified thus:
>
> l123 : <li id="l123"><xref ref="s123"/></li>
>
> ...with this as a separate entry:
>
> s123 : <span id="s123">progv</span>
We don't even have to invent a new syntax. You can define javascript
objects using a syntax almost exactly like that...
var cache = {
l123 : "<li id=\"l123\"><xref ref=\"s123\"/></li>"
s123 : "<span id=\"s123\">progv</span>"
};
then if we need to update it...
cache["l123"] = "<li id=\"l123\"><xref ref=\"s124\"/></li>";
--
Andy
_______________________________________________
cells-devel site list
cells-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/cells-devel
