On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:08 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> I’d like to propose the following official future organization for our >> javascript/CSS code. >> >> Note1: When I say “javascript” below, it should be understood as js + css >> (possibly less too). >> Note2: I started writing this email and then I realized Marius had already >> implemented it for 2 Extensions/Modules: the Platform Tree and the Platform >> Job modules. I was happy to discover this since it validated the idea I had >> ;) Maybe Marius has already sent an email to propose all this, in which cas >> I apologize for the duplication! >> >> So here’s the idea: >> >> * We should locate Java, REST and Javascript APIs in the Extension they >> relate to. For example the Model Module should hold the current Reference >> API but also the Javascript API to create, resolve and serialize references >> (i.e. what’s currently in entityReference.js). >> * Thus when an Extension adds or modify its Java API, it should keep in >> sync the other APIs too. And these APIs should be made available to the >> XWiki runtime only when those Extensions are loaded into the runtime. >> * The Javascript APIs should be packaged as webjar resources inside the >> JAR for the Extension (i.e. located in META-INF/resources/webjars/* in the >> JAR). Note: An Extension could deliver a singe JAR or several if we wish to >> separate the Java API from the Javascript API for example (this is what we >> currently have for the Platform Job and Platform Tree Webjars for ex). >> * The Javascript APIs should be declared using requirejs, using a >> define(), as in: >> >> define(['jquery', 'JobRunner', 'jsTree', 'tree-finder'], function($, >> JobRunner) { >> … >> } >> >> Note: In order to pass simple names to the define() and handle conditional >> minification, Marius has created a require-config.js in the tree webjar’s >> module: >> >> /*! >> #set ($minified = '.min') >> #if ($request.minify == 'false') >> #set ($minified = '') >> #end >> */ >> require.config({ >> paths: { >> jsTree: "$!services.webjars.url('jstree', 'jstree.min')", >> JobRunner: >> '$!services.webjars.url("org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-job-webjar", >> "jobRunner${minified}")', >> 'tree-finder': >> '$!services.webjars.url("org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-tree-webjar", >> "finder${minified}")', >> tree: >> '$!services.webjars.url("org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-tree-webjar", >> "tree${minified}")' >> }, >> shim: { >> jsTree: { >> deps: ['jquery'] >> } >> } >> }); >> >> * The Javascript APIs should be accessed using requirejs, using a >> require(), as in: >> >> require(["$!services.webjars.url('org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-tree-webjar', >> 'require-config.min.js', {'evaluate': true})"], function() { >> … >> } >> > > What I don`t fully understand when using some javascript code that is > presented this way is if the caller would have to use 2 nested require() > calls, like: > > require(["$!services.webjars.url('org.xwiki.platform:xwiki-platform-tree-webjar', > 'require-config.min.js', {'evaluate': true})"], function() { > // At this point, require-config.min.js is executed and I can now use the > short versions that consider the minify parameter. > require(['tree', > "$services.webjars.url('some.other:module-I-may-need-that-is-not-configured', > 'file')"], function(tree) { > // Finally, I can use the js code available in the tree variable. > tree.profit(); > }); > } > > I`m not sure what exactly we get by doing this and if it`s worth the effort.
You either use two (nested) calls to require or you duplicate the require config. Your choice. If you don't have additional dependencies (so no require config) then two nested require calls can be shorter. Thanks, Marius > > Thanks, > Eduard > >> >> Note: We’ll need to better handle the minification part in this example so >> that it’s optional and can be controlled by minify=true|false in the query >> string, but that’s easy to do. >> >> * Unit tests should be provided using Jasmine inside the Extension >> * The requireJS deps should be kept in sync with the Maven deps. >> >> WDYT? >> >> If we agree about this then I’m proposing that we document it in the >> DevGuide at >> http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/FrontendResources (which >> will need to be rewritten as it’s currently aging). >> >> The next step would be to find a way to move all our JS code under >> requirejs. I’ve been researching this but I’m far from being able to >> propose a solution at this time. I’ll need to brainstorm with our JS >> experts ;) >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
