Yes, I have received it. So now if you send a patch, or, I guess, a
pull request on GitHub
(https://github.com/apache/incubator-freemarker-docgen), then we can
incorporate that. (I have never seen the ASF GitHub integration in
action... let's hope it indeed works. (; )
About the Manual integration. The tricky part is that most examples
assume a data-model, but the data-model is not yet present in parsable
format. So it will have to be added to the DocBook XML somehow, and
only the examples which already has such data-model will be
submittable to FM-Online. My initial idea is this:
<programlisting role="fmOnlineDataModel">
x = 1
y = 2
</programlisting>
<programlisting role="template">
${x} ${y}
</programlisting>
So if a template is directly preceded by fmOnlineDataModel, then we
will have a "Try online" button (or whatever it should say). The
fmOnlineDataModel programlisting wouldn't be visible in the output.
On the longer run, we will also need a more serious data model
language. The one we have now is lame when it comes to composite
models. It was dropped together by me quickly, just to have something
instead of the original java.util.Properties format on FM-Online, and
it's owned by Kenshoo. The second iteration should be owned by the
FreeMarker project. It could be integrated into Docgen so that it can
check if the examples indeed run, with the expected output.
That language can also be part of some bolder plans. It can possibly
also be re-used for defining data-model in FTL comments (or in
external file attached, like foo.ftl + foo.ftm), a feature some users
was asking for. This has several uses:
- Helping IDE-s by specifying the expected type of the FTL
variables (see IntelliJ FreeMarker plugin)
- Provide a standard format for documenting the expected data-model
of a template.
- Providing sample values. In simpler applications the template could
even generate output without the backing application using those.
This is the feature FM-Online needs.
Friday, September 25, 2015, 6:06:38 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
> Done and got an acknowledgement that they have filed it.
> Pradeep.
>
>> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:42:28 +0200
>> From: [email protected]
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: FM-Online connect with Manual
>>
>> 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
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
