Yes. (Note that ICLA is only sufficient if your employer can't claim that your work belong to them.)
Thursday, September 24, 2015, 5:49:25 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: > Sure Daniel, > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf > Will it be sufficient to fill this copy scan and email to > [email protected] as mentioned here > http://www.apache.org/licenses/#submitting ? > Pradeep. > >> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:45:33 +0200 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: FM-Online connect with Manual >> >> OK, that's all fine. >> >> If you going to modify Docgen, you will need a CLA at ASF, if you >> don't yet have it. >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Daniel Dekany >> >> >> Wednesday, September 23, 2015, 11:54:20 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >> >> > Hi Daniel, >> >> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:01:25 +0200 >> >> From: [email protected] >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: FM-Online connect with Manual >> >> >> >> Sorry... it was in the back of my head, but now... >> >> >> >> I see no fundamental problem with it. Some minor notices: >> >> >> >> I think it's unnecessary to move the immediate execution functionality >> >> out to js/execute.js, especially as there's many other "ready" >> >> functionality just bellow it, inside that "script" element directly. >> >> It could fit on there. >> >> >> > Yeah I moved it over there >> >> Also I guess it would be more reliable if the immediate execution >> >> action is the last among the "ready" actions, because that's when it >> >> happens in the normal (non-Manual) case too. >> >> >> > Yeah Non-Manual, we don't this since the button click will trigger the >> > same. >> >> Some JavaDoc about FreeMarkerOnlineView constuctor paramteters, >> >> especially about `execute` wouldn't hurt at this point. >> >> >> > I have added the doc. added description only for execute since I >> > feel other params are explicit. Let me know If i need to add for the other >> > 2 as well. >> >> I see your pull request is still pending... Well, after 14 days or so >> >> I will start asking about it. Also when this current thing is ready, >> >> push it too. >> >> >> >> And yes, you in general you are supposed to work in feature branches >> >> and push those, otherwise you append to the last "master" push. >> >> However, I say, this current work can be appended to it, as they >> >> aren't really separate features. >> >> >> > I have added to the same pull request. >> > Pradeep. >> >> -- >> >> Thanks, >> >> Daniel Dekany >> >> >> >> >> >> Monday, September 21, 2015, 7:43:08 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >> >> >> >> > Daniel, >> >> > got a chance to review the changes ? >> >> > Pradeep. >> >> > >> >> >> From: [email protected] >> >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Subject: RE: FM-Online connect with Manual >> >> >> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:52:11 +0530 >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Daniel, >> >> >> the POC worked. So I have made the changes to suit our idea of >> >> >> triggering Ajax when we click from manual. >> >> >> I have removed the non ajax code and also modified the unit test >> >> >> cases. Removed a file that is not used after the changes. >> >> >> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/freemarker-online/commit/d90745d91d94503f444fab8ac41d8a0443ac5794 >> >> >> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/freemarker-online/commit/546a73cb4476a8b981858825c907704ece36973d >> >> >> I have checked these into another branch(FreeMarker_Manual_Try_it_out) >> >> >> since the first pull request is not accepted by them yet and I am not >> >> >> sure If I push these changes it will go as part of existing pull >> >> >> request. >> >> >> Kindly review and let me know if any changes. >> >> >> Pradeep. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:39:36 +0200 >> >> >> > From: [email protected] >> >> >> > To: [email protected] >> >> >> > Subject: Re: FM-Online connect with Manual >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I agree with what you have described. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You have earlier said that this will work by first rendering the page >> >> >> > with the filled form, and then sending the AJAX request. That's the >> >> >> > most maintainable way of doing this, as it requires almost no >> >> >> > duplicated functionality. So that's maybe fine. But the more >> >> >> > efficient >> >> >> > (lowest response time) way off doing this is also rendering the >> >> >> > response together with the filled form, so there's no AJAX request. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 7:05:58 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Yeah I think the Cross Domain issues comes into play with >> >> >> > > javascript. This approach should work. Let me do a POC and come >> >> >> > > back if its not working. >> >> >> > > Meanwhile please let me know if we have different visualizations. >> >> >> > > Pradeep. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> From: [email protected] >> >> >> > >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> > >> Subject: RE: FM-Online connect with Manual >> >> >> > >> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:22:32 +0530 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > <form target="manualFMOnline" action="..." >> >> >> > >> > method="post">...</form> >> >> >> > >> Hmmm but the above code will be in our manual , we should get >> >> >> > >> redirected to the FM-Online domain right. That's where I am >> >> >> > >> doubting whether cross domain POST will be allowed through >> >> >> > >> browser redirection. >> >> >> > >> Ok Even before going there , Let me tell my understanding so that >> >> >> > >> lets check if we are on the same page. >> >> >> > >> 1. FM Manual website will have a button or a link saying "try it >> >> >> > >> out" or something like that.2. When the user clicks on the same >> >> >> > >> he will redirected to a new page(FM-Online) where the >> >> >> > >> corresponding template and datamodel will be prefilled and >> >> >> > >> executed. >> >> >> > >> Am I right regarding this ? >> >> >> > >> Kindly let me know if you have visualised something different ? >> >> >> > >> Pradeep. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:39:21 +0200 >> >> >> > >> > From: [email protected] >> >> >> > >> > To: [email protected] >> >> >> > >> > Subject: Re: FM-Online connect with Manual >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > Huh? I meant: >> >> >> > >> > <form target="manualFMOnline" action="..." >> >> >> > >> > method="post">...</form> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 11:39:49 AM, Dékány Dániel wrote: >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > Won't something like <format target="manualFMOnline" >> >> >> > >> > > method="post">...</form> work? Anyway, I think both POST and >> >> >> > >> > > GET >> >> >> > >> > > should do the same, but using POST should be the norm. With >> >> >> > >> > > GET you >> >> >> > >> > > can get some very long URLs. While URL-s up to 2K length used >> >> >> > >> > > to >> >> >> > >> > > work on most places, even URL-s over 256 bytes is sometimes >> >> >> > >> > > considered worrisome. >> >> >> > >> > > Pradeep Murugesan <[email protected]> írta: >> >> >> > >> > >>Hi Daniel, >> >> >> > >> > >> The initial idea was when people click from manual we POST >> >> >> > >> > >> to the "/" with template and dataModel and get the page >> >> >> > >> > >> rendered directly. We do not have any direct method to open >> >> >> > >> > >> a new tab and directly post data. Some round about ways were >> >> >> > >> > >> mentioned in web but nothing concrete. >> >> >> > >> > >>So I thought of >> >> >> > >> > >>1. Issuing a GET request to fmonline/ with formdata. This >> >> >> > >> > >>will help us to populate the fields.2. We will also see if >> >> >> > >> > >>formdata is not empty then we will call our execute via ajax. >> >> >> > >> > >>3. If formdata is empty we will know that its a normal GET >> >> >> > >> > >>request (i.e not from manual) and render the empty page. >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >>Let me know your thoughts. >> >> >> > >> > >>Pradeep. >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > -- >> >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> >> >> > >> > Daniel Dekany >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > Thanks, >> >> >> > Daniel Dekany >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany
