This is just one of the many problems with inlining two or more gadgets gets you. The others include but aren't limited to:
* css styles defined in one gadget will apply on other gadgets with elements, classes, ids or other selectors that match * javascript functions and globals between gadgets that conflict * event handlers in one gadget bind to the wrong instance * modification of javascript prototype objects in one gadget conflict with others * xml namespaces defined in one gadget bleed into another What you need is to be able to turn a block of html, css and javascript into a closed function that you're able to instantiate multiple times, with each instance getting a fresh copy of those properties it wishes to be able to modify. This is the property that Caja gives you. Cajoling a block of html, css and javascript gives you a block of html and javascript that is safe for inlining multiple times. The difficulty in the case of Shindig (which we are working on resolving and why inlining with Caja is not checked in today) arises not from inlining html and css which are solved problems but from exposing the opensocial and other gadget apis to inlined code. These apis modify the javascript prototypes and other DOM objects on behalf of gadgets and are a means by which otherwise isolated gadgets may interfere with each other. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Kai Feng Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > The first problem inline gadget rendering needs to solve is about > namespacing conflict. > > Since some gadget declare a unique identifier for some element in dom, such > as <div id="hello">, if this gadget is rendered with inline multiple times > on same page, it's a problem of element id conflict. > > As our former implementation(in original patch to support inline) is based > on the iWidget context concept and request the gadget developer to rewrite > their gadget with a scope, which will generate a unique identifier for each > element in inline gadget, to avoid namespacing conflict issue. > > It might be a little reluctant for gadget developer to accept and it also > needs effort to rewrite thousands of existing gadgets. So we did not enable > this implementation in our new inline patch. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1402 > > But currently seems we didn't find a better way to solve it. So could > someone please review and propose any better way to do solve this > namespacing problem? > > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > > Kevin, Zhang Kai Feng > IBM Project Vulcan Development > IBM China Software Development Lab > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Kai Feng Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We originally posted inlining work directly into the existing container > > shindig-container/server side components... see > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1402 > > > > After reviewing some of these changes and learning more about the > features, > > we've stepped back and refactored those changes as a feature on the > common > > container. I add a new patch, which is based on new common container as > well > > as its new patch: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1460 > > > > After apply the patch, access > > http://localhost:8080/container/helloworld_common3.html you would see > the > > inline gadget and iframe gadget being rendered on same page, though they > are > > helloworld gadgets. Gadget requires "inline" feature will be rendered as > > inline one. > > > > Have to say that introducing inline rendering would cause much problem > for > > gadget features, since most of them are design specially for iframe > > rendering gadget. We will post the impacted aspects in following > comments. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Kevin, Zhang Kai Feng > > IBM Project Vulcan Development > > IBM China Software Development Lab > > > > >
