I guess you get it right. We have to ignore text that's white-space only, and wether it's CDATA or not we will do the same.
Saturday, December 12, 2015, 7:45:17 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > So we can ignore a CDATA text of that is mere formatting right ? > > Now it burns down to identify whether the text inside CDATA is a formatted > one or not. > > Am I right or did you mean the other way ? > > Pradeep. > > ________________________________________ > From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 12:44 AM > To: Pradeep Murugesan > Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling > > Thursday, December 10, 2015, 9:28:31 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> Done the changes >> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/296a7a85a1f1683a3d20be0220881333cbdc4216 >> (ignore build.xml , have reverted it) >> >> So previously we discussed to skip the following >> >> 1. Empty spaces >> 2. Comments >> 3. PIs >> 4. CDATA > > There's some kind of misunderstand here as CDATA shouldn't be there > like that. But see later. > >> Now 2 & 3s are not included in dom at all. > > Depends on how the TemplateModel was created. There are some > convenience methods included that remove commends and PI-s from the > DOM itself before wrapping, but some applications will just give a DOM > to wrap. > >> even the ?previousSibling skips those elements. >> >> Now the challenge comes in skipping the CDATA. I tried to use the >> nodeType check i.e ( if node.getNodeType == Node.CDATA_SECTION_NODE) >> but this is not working since CDATA node is considered as text node >> and the node type is returned as TEXT. Also the getNodeTextContent >> is returning the text inside the CDATA tag (Not the string CDATA >> itself) so I am not sure how we will be picking which is a >> characterData and which is a non empty text. > > CDATA is nothing just syntax for avoiding escaping special characters. > So of course we don't want to ignore them in general. Just think about > it, in <a/><![CDATA[foo bar]]><b/>, it's not like "foo bar" there can > be ignored without losing useful information (as opposed to losing > text that's just formatting). In fact, something being inside CDATA is > a proof that it's not just formatting, even if it's white-space. But > as we can't (reliably) tell if a piece of text is coming from CDATA or > not, we should ignore that difference even where you can tell it. > > -- > Thanks, > Daniel Dekany > >> Eg: >> <person> >> <profession>Software Engineer</profession> >> <![CDATA[ <a>test<a> ]]> >> <phone>12345678</phone> >> </person> >> >> doing a doc.person.phone.@@previous returns the node type as text with value >> as <a>test<a>; >> >> I am not sure which is the criteria to check the CDATA node. Am i missing >> something here ? >> >> Pradeep. >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:07 AM >> To: Pradeep Murugesan >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >> >> Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 10:11:04 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >> >>> Daniel, >>> >>> you got a chance to review this ? >>> >>> Pradeep. >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Pradeep Murugesan <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 10:15 AM >>> To: Daniel Dekany >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>> >>> Hi daniel, >>> >>> I have a question on the @@previous and @@next being null. So we >>> will return the previous significant node if exists but will return >>> an empty set of nodes if its null. which means we will return a >>> NodeListModel with an empty ArrayList. >> >> Yes. >> >>> In that case shouldn't we be wrapping the non null node too in >>> NodeListModel instead of NodeModel ? >>> >>> Right now the code might look like this >>> >>> if(previousSibling == null) { >>> return new NodeListModel(EMPTY_ARRAYLIST, null); >>> } else { >>> return wrap(previousSibling); >>> } >> >> Looks OK to me. >> >>> we need to return one dataType right ? it should be like >>> >>> if(previousSibling == null) { >>> return new NodeListModel(EMPTY_ARRAYLIST, null); >>> } else { >>> return NodeListModel(previousSibling); >>> } >>> >>> Let me know your inputs. >> >> NodeModel-s (like ElementModel) implement TemplateSequenceModel, just >> like NodeListModel does, so as far as the template is concerned, they >> are both list-like. The main difference is that a NodeModel can only >> represent a node sequence of size 1, while NodeListModel can represent >> a node sequence of arbitrary size. When your node sequence happens to >> be of size 1, you should always use NodeModel instead of >> NodeListModel, because only NodeModel-s implement TemplateScalarModel >> and so can be treated as a single strings in the template. >> >> I have to add though that the DOM wrapper is a part of the code that >> I'm not familiar with, and that wasn't cleaned up by me either. So >> watch out. >> >>> Pradeep >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 4:05 AM >>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>> >>> Sunday, December 6, 2015, 4:28:11 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Daniel, >>>> >>>> sorry for this huge gap.. Actually got caught up in Chennai >>>> floods ( Chennai, India). Just back to home town and safe. >>>> >>>> I have done the unit tests and the renaming of the files you >>>> suggested previously. Please review and let me know the changes. >>>> >>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/1db672a2ba3db1f08c594df663b4dd7e68d36d4a >>> >>> One random detail that I have spotted is: >>> node.getTextContent().trim().isEmpty(). It's not very efficient if you >>> think about it. Something like StringUtil.isTrimmableToEmpty would be >>> better, only with String argument of course. >>> >>>> I need to cover a case for which I need your inputs. >>>> >>>> Lets say we are in the last sibling and trying to access the next, >>>> same applies for previous as well what should we return ? null ? Kindly >>>> let me know your thoughts. >>> >>> "?previous" and "?next" should just return null. But "@@previous" and >>> "@@next" should behave like the other "@@" keys, that is, with XPath >>> logic, which says that the result is an empty set of nodes. Again >>> similarly to other "@@" keys and XPath expression, they should work >>> correctly on node sets that contains 0 or multiple nodes. >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> Daniel Dekany >>> >>>> Pradeep. >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 2:34 AM >>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>> >>>> Friday, November 20, 2015, 8:51:31 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>> >>>>> Took a long break due to some personal reasons. Sorry for the same. I >>>>> have a question in your email. >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean by >>>>> >>>>> "Also I guess inside the testPreviousSibling you don't really need >>>>> output capturing, nor ?trim. " >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure what you are coming to say there. We need to assert somehow >>>>> the expected o/p right ? >>>>> >>>>> so we can't assert against empty spaces since we don't know how >>>>> many spaces , So I thought of asserting the same after trimming the o/p. >>>> >>>> We don't need capturing for sure, I guess you see that now. As of >>>> trimming, that's a minor issue really, but in fact we know how many >>>> spaces are there, since we provide the XML. >>>> >>>>> Let me know if I am missing something. >>>>> >>>>> Pradeep. >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 2:44 AM >>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>> >>>>> Tuesday, November 3, 2015, 7:19:17 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have made the changes you have said and writing unit tests. I >>>>>> have written an unit test and need to check whether can I proceed in >>>>>> the same fashion. One important question I have is accessing the >>>>>> (XML) datamodel required for the testcase. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now I am overriding the function getDataModel() and read the xml >>>>>> from a file. Kindly let me know if that is acceptable. >>>>> >>>>> You don't need to override getDateModel(). Just add "doc" to the data >>>>> model with the TemplateTest.addToDataModel. >>>>> >>>>> Loading the XML file via java.io.File API is not entirely correct, >>>>> especially not with that relative path ("build/test-classes/..."). You >>>>> don't know what the current directory will be on the CI server for >>>>> example. Also, though an extreme case, but it can also occur that a >>>>> test suite is ran from an unexploded jar (i.e., you don't even have >>>>> real files anywhere). Just like outside tests, the correct solution is >>>>> using Class.getResource or Class.getResourceAsStream to read >>>>> class-loader resources. >>>>> >>>>> Also I guess inside the testPreviousSibling you don't really need >>>>> output capturing, nor ?trim. >>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/42132df19b6f8e53f66ff3f6cbbce459376c65a6 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S : I have removed the author name in next commit. Intellij adds >>>>>> it and I am missing it everytime. Sorry!!. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pradeep. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: Pradeep Murugesan <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 7:46 AM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>> >>>>>> oh now I got it. >>>>>> >>>>>> So we can also expect something like >>>>>> <a/> there is some text here <b/> >>>>>> >>>>>> Now when the user do a @@previous on node 'b' he will get node 'a' >>>>>> but he might expect "there is some text here" which is still a valid >>>>>> text node. >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought there can be no such scenario so kept hanging on with >>>>>> blindly skipping all till we get a node. So I will do the following . >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. rename to @@previous_significant >>>>>> 2. skip the siblings when its in any of the blacklisted candidates. >>>>>> ( whitespaces, CDATA, \n(ofcourse)) >>>>>> >>>>>> Pradeep. >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:12 AM >>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>> >>>>>> Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 6:21:19 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with that but I have a question kindly don't take it as an >>>>>>> argument. Just curious to know >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. <a/>cdata<b/> >>>>>>> 2. <a/> \n<b/> >>>>>>> 3. <a/>comments<b/> >>>>>>> 4. <a/>some PI's<b/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In all the above 4 scenarios when we do a @@previous on node 'b' we >>>>>>> expect node 'a'. >>>>>> >>>>>> With what you have implemented so far, that is. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am suggesting we will keep iterating until we find a node type >>>>>>> ELEMENT_NODE and return it. >>>>>>> you are suggesting to keep iterating until we find a node that is not >>>>>>> in \n, CDATA, PIs etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think both will work. Do you think any of it which should be >>>>>>> skipped will also have node type ELEMENT_NODE. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure about what is a better logic though. Kindly let me >>>>>>> know if I am not getting something which you are telling. >>>>>> >>>>>> Silently skipping non-whitespace text is dangerous. But if you call >>>>>> this @@previous_element, then the user will expect it to happen, so >>>>>> then what you have implemented can be OK. >>>>>> >>>>>> As of my @@previous definition, the name is problematic even there, as >>>>>> it doesn't just return the previous sibling (?previousSibling does >>>>>> that). It does some magic, by skipping whitespace and such. So >>>>>> certainly it should be called @@prevous_significant or >>>>>> @@previous_non_ws, so that it's clear that some trickery is involved. >>>>>> As of the semantic, the motivation is simply to return what many >>>>>> naturally expect to be the previous node. Like remember your case; >>>>>> getting some text instead of the preceding programlisting element was >>>>>> unexpected at first, I assume. Yes, your definition of @@previous >>>>>> fixes that too. But if you had some non-whitespace text between those >>>>>> two programlisting elements, certainly you expect to get that text, >>>>>> not the element before it. People don't see non-whitespace text as >>>>>> ignorable, because in fact it hardly ever is. >>>>>> >>>>>> So after renaming both operations are OK, but I think >>>>>> @@previous_significant is a safer operation than @@previous_element, >>>>>> because you won't unintentionally skip non-whitespace text with it. >>>>>> Surely @@previous_element is quite clear about what it does (that it >>>>>> will skip text), but then, what can the users do about it? They will >>>>>> have to hope that there won't be any non-whitespace text before the >>>>>> target element, ever. Because when there is, they won't know about it, >>>>>> they can't give an error or something. With @@prevous_significant, >>>>>> when that assumption fails, they will get the text node and the >>>>>> template that expects an element can fail or take some special action, >>>>>> so there's no silent information loss. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>>> >>>>>>> Pradeep. >>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:33 PM >>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 3:52:35 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By that do you mean that you intend to continue it later so that it >>>>>>>>> will only skip whitespace, etc., or you think this approach is more >>>>>>>>> practical? (If it's the later, why?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---- So by @@previous the user expects the previous node. But >>>>>>>> currently it returns the \n , spaces, as you mentioned CDATA etc. >>>>>>>> To skip these we need to maintain a list of blacklisted candidates >>>>>>>> to skip. Today we have 3 candidates (let's assume) later we may get >>>>>>>> lot to skip which we should be adding as blacklisted. >>>>>>>> I went for this approach assuming there won't be any scenario >>>>>>>> where we skip any nodes of type ELEMENT_NODE to fetch the >>>>>>>> previousSibling node. If we will skip ELEMENT_NODE as well then no >>>>>>>> other go we need to maintain a list of candidates to skip. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean be "maintaining". We just check the node on >>>>>>> the fly, and decide if we proceed with its sibling or return it. What >>>>>>> we want to skip certainly won't change over time, as the information >>>>>>> model of XML won't change any time soon, if ever. It's WS-only text >>>>>>> (it doesn't mater if it's plain text or a CDATA section), comments and >>>>>>> PI-s. (We never skip elements.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kindly let me know if I am wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding the nullPointer exception I have handled it. But Didn't >>>>>>>> commit. Its like parent directive right we will return null if its >>>>>>>> the root node, similarly we can return null if its first and last >>>>>>>> accessing previous and next respectively. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pradeep. >>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:45 AM >>>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 6:04:19 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have fixed the code review comments here. >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/2e1b0d834e941eaf4ea8aafad720333c7ec1040c >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's minor issue, but BuiltInsExtForNode and BuiltInExtForNod still >>>>>>>> don't follow the same convention as the others. The ...BI classes >>>>>>>> should just be inside BuiltInsForNodes (no need for >>>>>>>> BuiltInsExtForNode), and BuiltInExtForNode should be called >>>>>>>> BuiltInForNodeEx. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding the @@previous and @@next we decided to skip the >>>>>>>>> whitespaces and other character data. Instead I tried to find first >>>>>>>>> occurrence of the node which is of type Node.ELEMENT_NODE >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By that do you mean that you intend to continue it later so that it >>>>>>>> will only skip whitespace, etc., or you think this approach is more >>>>>>>> practical? (If it's the later, why?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, I believe that the current implementation will throw >>>>>>>> NullPointerException after you have reached the first or the last >>>>>>>> node. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/2e1b0d834e941eaf4ea8aafad720333c7ec1040c#diff-a029bb56a7cedf8c6272a6d8b566f446 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I tried few cases and things worked fine there. Kindly let me know >>>>>>>>> your thoughts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P.S : I am working on the Junit test cases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pradeep. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:36 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK, let's see. I have ran through the diff and have spotted these >>>>>>>>> (just in the order as I find then): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> putBI("previousSibling", new previousSiblingBI()), etc. should be >>>>>>>>> putBI("previous_sibling", "previousSibling", new previousSiblingBI()). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BuiltInExtForNode: Doesn't follow the naming pattern of the other >>>>>>>>> BuiltIns... classes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> TemplateNodeModelExt: Should be TemplateNodeModelEx (as we already >>>>>>>>> have other Ex models, we are stuck with that convention...) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BuiltinVariable: You have registered two new names there, but these >>>>>>>>> aren't built-in variables. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In ElementModel: @@previous and @@next doesn't yet implement what we >>>>>>>>> were talking about. I mean, it doesn't just skip white-space and >>>>>>>>> comments and PI-s, but any text nodes. (Also an XPath-based >>>>>>>>> implementation won't be very fast. org.w3c.dom.Node-s has >>>>>>>>> getPreviousSibling()/getNextSibling() methods. Also, if you will skip >>>>>>>>> WS text only, you won't be able to do that with XPath anyway.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (As a policy, there should not be author comments ("created by") in >>>>>>>>> the source code.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Friday, October 23, 2015, 9:09:56 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/465ed1bd768e8a5bee91bea7d3b291a5872efae5 >>>>>>>>>> I have added the builtIns which will return blindly the previous >>>>>>>>>> and next sibling and also the special variables @@previous and >>>>>>>>>> @@next which will return the valid node. In the special variable >>>>>>>>>> case I have used the xpath to get the required nodes. >>>>>>>>>> Kindly review and let me know your thoughts. >>>>>>>>>> Pradeep. >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:42:04 +0200 >>>>>>>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Returning the sibling node without skipping stuff is not >>>>>>>>>>> XML-specific, >>>>>>>>>>> so certainly that should be ?previous (and a new method in the new >>>>>>>>>>> TemplateNodeModelEx interface), not a hash key that starts with "@". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> BTW, of course all of these has an opposite direction variant, like >>>>>>>>>>> "@next". And "@prev" may should be "@previous". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sunday, October 18, 2015, 5:31:50 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > yeah makes sense.. >>>>>>>>>>> > so we need to return a valid element node he is looking for >>>>>>>>>>> > skipping all the whitespace, CDATA etc... >>>>>>>>>>> > I am wondering if the user will have any reason to look for a >>>>>>>>>>> > CDATA >>>>>>>>>>> > sibling or any non element sibling which we will skip. >>>>>>>>>>> > In that case can we have 2 special cases. >>>>>>>>>>> > 1. @prev which will return the immediate sibling2. @prevNode or >>>>>>>>>>> > something intutive which will return a valid element skipping few >>>>>>>>>>> > . >>>>>>>>>>> > Pradeep. >>>>>>>>>>> >> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:15:57 +0200 >>>>>>>>>>> >> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Saturday, October 17, 2015, 7:09:49 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > hmm then I think @@prev should return the immediate sibling >>>>>>>>>>> >> > with the following issues/advantages. >>>>>>>>>>> >> > 1. In xml doc its a overhead for user to call it twice to get >>>>>>>>>>> >> > the >>>>>>>>>>> >> > previous element node2. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> It much worse than that, if it just returns the previous sibling >>>>>>>>>>> >> on >>>>>>>>>>> >> the DOM, as you can't know if you have to call it once, twice, 3 >>>>>>>>>>> >> times, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > For less document centric it is not a problem. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> For non-document XML it's similarly desirable. I meant JSON and >>>>>>>>>>> >> such, >>>>>>>>>>> >> where @@prev doesn't exist anyway... >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > 3. for Non-normalized dom we wont do anything before they >>>>>>>>>>> >> > normalize it . >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Actually, we can do a little effort... skipping *all* the >>>>>>>>>>> >> white-space-only character date nodes and comments and PI-s. But >>>>>>>>>>> >> that's all. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > Let me know If I got that correctly. >>>>>>>>>>> >> > If so I will add @@prev as a special case and use >>>>>>>>>>> >> > .node.@@prev.@@prev to get to theprevious sibling node. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> You mean, you will use: .node.@@prev >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > Pradeep. >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:09:36 +0200 >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Thursday, October 15, 2015, 10:44:10 PM, Pradeep Murugesan >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Hi Daniel, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > So you are saying we need to have it that way and leave the >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > responsibility to the caller. Lets say in case of us to get >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > to check >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > if template is preceded by formDataModel we will do the >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > follwing ? >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <#local siblingElement = .node.@@prev.@@prev> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > then check the role attribute of siblingElement ? >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I assume the semantic for @@prev should return the immediate >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > sibling being it a whitespace , CDATA or \n as in our case. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Let me know your thoughts. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I think that in almost all cases the user means the previous >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> DOM node >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> ignoring white-space nodes and comments, and certainly PI-s >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> too. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> (That's also why ?previous or such wouldn't solve the problem >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> you ran >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> into, while it can be still very useful in some other >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> applications, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> like where the tree is not from XML but something less >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> document-centric.) (Non-normalized DOM-s, like one with >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> sibling cdata >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> nodes, could also complicate what we need, but I belive that >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> such >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> cases can only be addressed reasonably be ensuring that the >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> whole DOM >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> is normalized before we do anything with it... so it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> mater >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> now.) >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Pradeep. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:32:33 +0200 >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> Thursday, October 15, 2015, 4:13:18 PM, Pradeep Murugesan >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > HI Daniel, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > Its not preceeded by white spaces but "\n" is taken as >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > sibling. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> \n is whitespace, and it's a sibling in XML. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > In book.xml <programlisting role="formDataModel">dsadsd >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > fdfsdfdsf dfds</programlisting> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <programlisting role="template"><#if cargo.weight < >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <emphasis>100</emphasis>>Light >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > cargo</#if></programlisting> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > I am trying to get the programlisting with role >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > formDataModel as >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > previousSibling. But the "\n" is returned as the >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > sibling. To confirm >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > the same I just checked it with >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > node.previousSibling().previousSibling() and I am able >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > to get to formDataModel. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > What should we need to do for this here ? >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> Nothing... it's correct that way. it's that you want the >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> sibling >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> *element*, as I said. Actually, it's a bit trickier than >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> that. You >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> want to get the sibling element, unless the interfering >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> character data >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> is non-whitespace. Because, if you have <a/>cdata<b/>, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> then surely you >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> don't want to say that <b/> is preceded bu <a/>, but >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> "cdata". >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > I have also added a key with @@prev in ElementModel and >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > that works fine. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> So what exactly is the semantic of @@prev? >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > Pradeep. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:32:40 +0200 >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> I'm not sure what's improper in the result (I don't >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> know what was >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> expected). Isn't that node preceded by white space? >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> That would explain >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> it. You might rather want the previous *element*. But >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> that will be >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> difficult to express on the TemplateNodeModel level, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> which is not >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> bound to XML. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> One important point is that you can't add new methods to >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> TemplateNodeModel, as that breaks backward >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> compatibility. It can only >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> be added to a new sub-interface, like >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> TemplateNodeModelEx. But even >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> that won't solve getting the sibling element node. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> So another approach is instead of adding a built-in, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> adding a new >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> special key that's specific to freemarker.ext.dom >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> models, like >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> "@@prev" and "@@next". >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Wednesday, October 14, 2015, 9:10:25 PM, Pradeep >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Murugesan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Hi Daniel, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > I tried to add a new built in & of course it DIDN'T >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > work ?. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > I did the following. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > 1. added putBI("previousSibling", new >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > previousSiblingBI()); in >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > BuiltIn.java2. added a static class in >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > BuiltInForNodes.java static >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > class previousSiblingBI extends BuiltInForNode { >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > @Override >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > TemplateModel >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > calculateResult(TemplateNodeModel nodeModel, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Environment env) throws TemplateModelException { >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > return nodeModel.getPreviousSibling(); >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > } >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > } >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > 3. added a method in Interface TemplateNodeModel.java >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > TemplateNodeModel getPreviousSibling() throws >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > TemplateModelException; >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > 4. In package freemarker.ext.dom's NodeModel added >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > the following method >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > public TemplateNodeModel getPreviousSibling() { >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Node >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > previousSibling = node.getPreviousSibling(); >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > return wrap(previousSibling);} >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Once this is done I tried to access it as >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > .node?previousSibling >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > from template and it reached till the NodeModel class >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > i defined in >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > the 4th step. But the returned previousSibling is not >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > proper. It's >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > not returning the programListingNode with >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > formDataModel instead returns someother node. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > I tried to log the node returned and I got the >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > following o/p >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > [docgen:transform] [#text: >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > [docgen:transform] ] >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > I clearly understand the implementation of >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > getPreviousSibling is >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > not proper, but I couldn't figure out where we have >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > implemented the same. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Please advise. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Pradeep. >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks, >>>> Daniel Dekany >>>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Daniel Dekany >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> > > -- > Thanks, > Daniel Dekany > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
