Pascal Voitot wrote:
> Hello,
> I used JSX to write a GoogleMap extension...
>
> My problem was the loading of the google entry library needed to get a
> reference to "google" object in javascript.
> How do you manage this without modifying the skin template?
>
> Actually, this was not possible with JSX because JSX is not able to manage
> external JS files as we have already explained in another mail.
> So I modified the Skin template which is not satisfying to me.
> Then, I also modified JSX to manage this in order to evaluate the idea and I
> find it much practical because I can lazily load any Javascript extension
> now and I don't fear security issues in my case because my site should be
> opened on internet... ;)
>
> Anyway, my googlemap extension was only javascript functions in JSX... I
> could have written a Velocity Macro but needed only some JS functions that I
> call in the middle of my XHTML/JS...
>
> Don't understand why you should write a real macro instead of a velocity?
> there is nothing to do on the server side for this, isn't it? Only some
> formatting of HTML/JS...
For the two reasons I mentioned in the first mail :
1. Something like
{{map location="10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" message="One of the
XWiki offices"/}}
is nicer and more explicit for the users of wiki editor than the
following in velocity :
{{velocity}}#map("10, rue Pernety, Paris, France" "One of the XWiki
offices" "" "" "" ""){{/velocity}}
2. In velocity, we have to give a value (even empty one) for all
parameters (I added above a lot of empty values just to show that if the
macro supports many optional parameters, this is how the velocity call
will look like).
And I would add...
3. We can write unit tests/rendering tests for an actual XWiki Syntax
2.0 macro. This is another advantage, it will make it easier to add
parameters or new implementations (viamichelin for example ;)) to the macro.
Regards,
Jerome.
>
> regards
> Pascal
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jerome Velociter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I started working on a {{map}} macro
>> (http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2784).
>> This raise the question of how (or if) we should work when writing
>> macros depending on JS APIs (being here google maps, yahoo maps, etc.).
>>
>> The variants I've envisaged so far :
>>
>> 1a. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in
>> Strings we transform in lists of WordBlock + SpaceBlock we append as
>> children of a XMLBlock "script". I find this a little painful and not
>> very natural.
>>
>> 1b. We write all the needed JavaScript in the macro itself. We do it in
>> Strings we pass as content of a html/xhtml macros blocks.
>
>
>> 2a. We write most of the JavaScript in a JSX object (for example a sort
>> of facade to some google maps APIs), and only the needed calls in the
>> macro itself (for example the call to load a map in a div element).
>> For the code in the macro, we use the same strategy as 1a, except that
>> there is just one of such XML block, and it's relatively short.
>> The JSX Strategy in 2a/2b has that clear advantage to make it much
>> simpler on the server side, but as a counterpart, the macro needs to be
>> distributed as a xar + jar, while in 1) it's a jar only.
>
>
>> 2b. Same as 2a using the strategy in 1b for the part in the macro. This
>> is the way I have my prototype working right now. I admit I don't really
>> know what to think about the fact I'm building macros blocks (a velocity
>> one for the jsx "use" call, and a html one for the javascript call)
>> inside the macro itself. I hope you can tell more about this, and let me
>> know if it's a bad practice.
>>
>> 3. We don't do such macro :) We consider it's not what wiki macro should
>> be and we decide to have such macros only as velocity macros which are
>> much simpler to write in that case. This does not change anything for
>> the wysiwyg users, as far as I understand, but it does for the wiki
>> users.{{map location="Paris, France"}} is much more elegant than
>> {{velocity}}#map("Paris, France"){{/velocity}} ; and is much better too
>> in terms of configuration (in velocity we would need to give values to
>> all parameters, even if we want to use default value for most of them).
>>
>> WDYT ? Are there some variants I did not envisage ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jerome.
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
