You can build on these new "@@" keys in Docgen of course. As of when it will be merged into a stable release, I don't know yet, maybe 2.3.24, maybe 2.3.25. In any case, Docgen, as an internal project, can use nightly versions, so it doesn't have to wait for stable releases.
For efficiency, I usually try to review contributions in one go, when the pull request is merged. But I took a quick glance at the commits, and hasn't spotted any problems. -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany Sunday, December 13, 2015, 9:48:17 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I have added those cases for CDATA as well. > https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/620d8a35e689bd6e94fb77ceb844105d66b90ca9 > > Renamed @@previous and @@next to @@previous_significant and > @@next_significant > https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/cbe7025bfe8fe713b74d1b5499d14fd7cd35c4f8 > > Kindly review the same and let me know if we are good to integrate with > docgen. > > Pradeep. > > > ________________________________________ > From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 12:07 AM > To: Pradeep Murugesan > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling > > 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 > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
