Hi Daniel,
Sure, Got a busy weekend. So couldn't look into you email. Sorry for the
delayed response.
I will start working on connecting the manual with FM online .
Regarding the datamodel language we can come to it after we integrate what we
have already right ?
Pradeep.
> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:11:28 +0200
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: FM-Online connect with Manual
>
> 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
>
