Monday, September 28, 2015, 8:34:48 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: > 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 ?
Right. -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany > 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 >> >
