Hey Daniel,
I have made the changes you have mentioned in the UI side. Yet a quick
question, You have mentioned auto import shouldn't be a checkbox. But you have
mentioned like
"[name ] [ ] Auto import [ ] Auto include" .
We should have it as text box right ?
Regarding the Configuration , I see that we have a freeMarkerConfig (instance
of Configuration) and we actually build a Template and TemplateConfiguration
and is attached to the freemarkerConfig.
Now in case of additional templates, If we create a Template (with name) and
TemplateConfiguration for each and attach to the freeMarkerConfig (main
configuration).
Let me know if I am getting it wrong.
Pradeep.
________________________________
From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 2:22 AM
To: Pradeep Murugesan
Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues)
Tuesday, August 2, 2016, 2:39:45 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Got the client side changes and have pushed @
> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/freemarker-online/tree/additionalTemplates.
>
> Attached the screenshot of how it will look . Kindly let me know if there are
> any changes.
I have just realized that auto-import shouldn't be a checkbox but a
text imput, as you have to specify the import prefix...
Now that I see it with 2 additional templates, I think the "+" button
has some usability disadvantages. People expect the new template to
appear after the last template (as opposed to be inserted before the
first one). But the "+" button is always at top. So it would be better
after the last template. But then it's not entirely obvious what it
adds. So, how about having only this under the main template textarea
(note that there's no "Addition templates" title):
[Add template] to #import/#include
where [Add template] is a button, and the text after it is a gray
hint. Now if someone adds a template, you will have:
Template to #import/#include:
[name ] [ ] Auto import [ ] Auto include
[Enter template, like <#macro greet name>Hello ${name}!</#macro>]
[Add template] to #import/#include
So as you can see, the the [Add template] button will be always at the
bottom, where the new template will be added if you press it. (If
someone adds multiple templates, there will be a "Template to
#import/#include:" label before each.)
Note that I have also changed the textarea example text.
> I am going through the server side requirements/changes that needs
> to be done. Will come back once I have my questions ready.
One tricky thing will be that FM-Online uses a shared singleton
Configuration currently, but the additional templates are named, so
the Configuration need to be aware of them. I guess the best will be
just creating a new drop-away Configuration instance in case there are
additional templates. (The other alternative is using a TLS-aware
TemplateChache, but that's probably too tricky for sparing those CPU
cycles.) (Yet another alternative is supporting Environment-local
named templates in FM 2.3.26... but that's the hardest of all.)
> Pradeep.
>
>
>
> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 1:39:01 AM
> To: Pradeep Murugesan
> Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues)
>
> Monday, August 1, 2016, 6:11:37 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Got a chance to work on the task. I have come up with something
>> here http://codepen.io/pradeepmurugesan/pen/oLPNgQ.
>
> Looks fine.
>
>> I have the following questions.
>>
>> 1. The pure css used by the online validator is pretty old . Do we
>> have any idea to replace the same with the latest version of
>> pure(http://purecss.io/) or bootstrap.
>
> You can update Pure if you want to, or use Bootstrap CSS... I don't
> know either. If you have experience with them, I will trust your
> judgement.
>
>> 2. How many such template can the user add. like can he keep on
>> adding it or we are going to put any restrictions there.
>
> To keep users from killing the server, let's say, the main template
> plus at most 3 importable/includable templates.
>
>> Kindly let me know any changes in the pen and also answer to the above.
>>
>> Pradeep.
>>
>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:59:34 AM
>> To: Daniel Dekany
>> Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues)
>>
>> Monday, June 27, 2016, 8:24:21 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>>
>>> I should
>>
>> I meant "It should".
>>
>>> support adding arbitrary templates. As I imagine it, there
>>> would be an "Add template" button, and when you press it, it adds an
>>> extra text area, which has a template name input, an "auto import"
>>> checkbox, and an "auto include" checkbox, and a "Remove template"
>>> button over it.
>>
>> Another thing... we should add an "Incompatible improvements" dropdown
>> after the existing ones, which preselects the value of
>> Configuration.getVersion().
>>
>>
>>> Monday, June 27, 2016, 7:24:19 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cool.. I will start with adding the extra template name thing to
>>>> the online template tester. (#import and #include) . I would need
>>>> more pointers on the same. How have you visualised the same.
>>>> Meaning , How the users can import other templates, we will give
>>>> provision to add other templates or we have some predefined
>>>> templates loaded , so that they can import the same ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:02:38 PM
>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: Graduation issues
>>>>
>>>> Happy to see you back!
>>>>
>>>> There are things to do, of course.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't yet merged in your contribution with XML siblings (so it
>>>> won't be in 2.3.25 - sorry about that, next time), and AFAIR there
>>>> were some wrinkles to work on.
>>>>
>>>> I have done some of the planned improvements on
>>>> http://freemarker-online.kenshoo.com/ (mostly to draw attention to the
>>>> outputFormat setting of 2.3.24), but there are other things to do.
>>>> Apart from what was discussed earlier, I think supporting adding extra
>>>> templates with names would be handy, because then people can play
>>>> around with #import and #include.
>>>>
>>>> And then of course, there's http://freemarker.org/contribute.html with
>>>> even more things to do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 12:27:01 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Daniel & team,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry that I was dormant for a long time after a very short tent
>>>>> @ Freemaker. I am out of some critical issues and have some bandwidth
>>>>> from now on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kindly let me know if there is anything I could help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:48:55 AM
>>>>> To: Sergio Fernández
>>>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Graduation issues
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we can start some discussion about that even now. Or at least
>>>>> I will tell what do I think about the state of the project.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main problem is the number of active developers, which is 1, me.
>>>>> What if I'm hit by a truck tomorrow? We can hope that if there's a bug
>>>>> that concerns many, then someone will eventually fix it. After all the
>>>>> owner (ASF) won't be gone, the release infrastructure is there, etc.
>>>>> But as far as non-bugfix development goes, it's certain that things
>>>>> would stop. Some may say that that's OK for a project that's
>>>>> backward-compatibility-locked for 12 years now (the 2.x line is
>>>>> actually 14 years old). But of course that's just slow death if a
>>>>> project can't counter its old design problems and can't evolve to
>>>>> tackle new problems anymore. So indeed 2.x should switch to
>>>>> maintenance eventually (but ATM there are still things that can be
>>>>> done in 2.x), but only to give place for 3.x. Anyway, how to catch
>>>>> long standing developers? I don't think that 2.x have a real chance
>>>>> for that, because of all the legacy code burden piled up. (Some Apache
>>>>> projects have many paid contributors, but I think FM isn't the kind of
>>>>> project that can have that, so it's important that the developers want
>>>>> to fiddle with it for free.) So the 3.x jump will be necessary, and
>>>>> then, maybe, we can have a developer base growth (template engines
>>>>> isn't hot topic anymore, so I just mean having a few developers
>>>>> around). But 3.x is far away (if it will happen at all), and we can't
>>>>> hang around in the incubator forever. So, do you believe there's any
>>>>> chance to graduate with the current developer base?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Monday, June 13, 2016, 8:15:11 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides the technical discussion for 2.3.25-incubating, after that
>>>>>> release
>>>>>> you may start to discuss a possible graduation. We have to discuss many
>>>>>> aspects (specially growth of the community), but technically speaking the
>>>>>> podling is capable os casting releases.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
