On 10/29/2012 08:19 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 10/29/2012 05:27 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote:

I would like to make a bigger change in Web UI. Basically I think Web
UI would benefit from using a Dojo toolkit, a JS framework. I would
like to know if I can proceed with incorporating it. I think this is
the best time (end of 3.0/3.1 and a beginning of 3.2) to do such change.

Why Dojo?
It may solve several existing issues in Web UI architecture/code

TLDR version:
* incorporates a lot of functionality we don't have to write
* is considered to be a framework for enterprise class web applications
* reuse an establish library which may be known to more developers
then custom build in-house solution
* makes code more maintainable
* opportunity to separate Web UI framework and IPA specific parts

Some functionality of Dojo overlaps with jquery which is not good, but
the reason to use Dojo are the features jquery lacks.
I also look on other frameworks or independent libraries: AngularJS,
backbone.js, closure js framework and several single-purpose libraries
(crossroads, hasher, underscore, amd-utils,. IMO Dojo is the best fit
for us.

 From Dojo I would like to use:

### 1) Build system and AMD modules
Web UI doesn't use any JavaScript optimizer therefore we need to keep
low file count and minimum size of files. We share one file for
multiple components to keep the file count low. It leads to very long
files. It's harder to maintain than separate files for each component.
AMD modules and a builder can solve it.

AMD modules [1] encourages to use one file per component. Then a dojo
builder can be used to modify the declaration of a module for file
concatenation then it can be sent to JavaScript minifier/compiler.

Dojo builder [2] is quite powerfull, it can define 'layers' which
serves as a part of application - basically a sets of component so an
application with ie. 150 files can be compile to one or more (if
needed) .js. Dojo loader takes care of the loading.

AFAIU build system can be run at rpm build time using rhino (version
1.7R3-4 needed). Uglify.js can be used as a compiler, it's JS library
and can be run in rhino too.  The builder and uglify.js would be
needed to budle in our source tarball but they won't be in output rpms
so they shouldn't break Fedora packaging rules. Both are BSD licensed.
Builder would need a patch to support Uglify (it's commited in dojo
upstream trac but I want to incorporated it in latest stable version).

[1] http://dojotoolkit.org/documentation/tutorials/1.8/modules/
[2] http://dojotoolkit.org/documentation/tutorials/1.8/build/

### 2) Object store/model
At the beginning Web UI was quite simple - a command filled widgets,
widgets got edited, update command was constructed from widgets, it
was sent to  server and at the end widgets were updated with new values.

Now various parts of displayed page (action lists, panels, status
widgets, facet header) needs to use loaded values too or influence
others. This issue was often discussed in patch reviews. As a
solution, some model object with bidirectional binding capabilities
would be greatly beneficial.

Dojo provides a extensible object store [1]. I would like to use
'memory store' and 'observable' and extend it with 'dirty-check'

[1] http://dojotoolkit.org/documentation/tutorials/1.8/intro_dojo_store/

### 3) Class model
Yes, in IPA Web UI we are using some class model, but it has flaws,
mainly in initialization of a object (some initialization code of
parent class may be called before inheritance is finished).

Dojo has a class system [1] which is easy to use and support
inheritance, mixins and overrided function calls.

[1] http://dojotoolkit.org/documentation/tutorials/1.8/declare/

### 4) Localization
Web UI and pages in config, migrate and error folder are not localized
until successful login. It's because Web UI gets localized strings by
API call which needs prior authentication. We should use other method
to provide localized config, error and login pages.

Dojo has a easy to use localization solution [1]. Basically strings
are defined in .js files as modules, translations in subfolders. Dojo
loader and i18n framework take care of loading of proper string
depending on user's local. It doesn't need communication with JSON-RPC
so can be used in config and login pages.

We would  have to make a script to translate the format to a format
usable by transifex.

[1] http://dojotoolkit.org/documentation/tutorials/1.8/i18n/

### 5) Navigation
Our navigation code is limited to IPA entities. Introducing non-entity
page like log (#3040) or help is problematic. Routing code should be
improved. Separate entity initialization and menu definition. As the
re-factoring will be at some point done, we might consider to use
dojo.router and dojo.hash instead of $.bbq. This is really optional
and not strictly related to Dojo, but I wanted to mention it.

Better handling of pkeys may fix `#2741 [ipa webui] Intermittent
errors - 'cn' is required; limits exceeded for this query`

### 6) Easier unit tests
By utilizing AMD modules, Localization, Model binding we might be able
to write unit tests of widgets easier. Now we have to simulate entity,
facets, fields, strings loaded from JSON-RPC...

### 7) Separation of framework and IPA
We often talk about separating Web UI framework and IPA related stuff.
We can do it along with this refactoring.

What I don't want to do
* rewrite whole UI, changes should be gradual
* replace jQuery. Most of our widgets are using jquery, I don't want
to change this code, so I don't want to replace it with Dojo widget
system - too big effort. So in the result the HTML output should not
be changed much - not to affect automated tests.

### Steps how could be Dojo incorporated
It should be done gradually.
1) make the build system working. Without it a lot of .js files would
be transmitted to browser which is really bad.
2) separate components to individual files and transform then into AMD
modules. We might change namespaces and dependencies to separate Web
UI framework and IPA related stuff.
3) change class system of entities and facets
4) implement a 'model'
At this point it depends on priorities and new tickets with higher
priority may appear.

Existing Web UI tickets
Most of the tickets in 3.2 and 3.3 backlog are nice-to-haves.
Therefore this effort should not negatively affect fixing of Web UI
bugs or developing features.
The only bigger and recommended ticket is:
* #2792     [RFE] Allow quering user lock status and unlocking user in UI
* and probably a DHCP effort.
I already have prepared patches (just waiting for a start of 3.2
development to post them) for:
* #3200     [RFE] Confirmation by 'Enter' is not supported in all
confirmation dialogs
* #2884     Improve notification and validation in password reset dialogs
* #2910     [RFE] [Web UI] Use "Enter" to confirm add dialogs
I think, we can close, as the functionality is already there:
* #2682     [RFE]: enable/disable users/HBAC/Sudo in search list

Comments are welcome

What is the packaging situation? Is Dojo packaged for Fedora and other

There is a build for latest version (1.8.1) in koji and AFAIK in RHEL is some older version (1.5?) which lacks many of the features.

I would rather pack it with FreeIPA. I would bundle the Dojo builder either way because is not part of the Fedora package. Other thing is that the build in the fedora package won't be probably suited for FreeIPA - it's not build into single file. IMO Fedora JavaScript packaging rules are not good. They don't address web applications needs -join multiple libraries to one file depending on application needs. Two years ago there was some discussion about improving them (to address this issue) on fedora-devel list but there is no conclusion. Anyway bundling a JS library is not against the rules.

How healthy is the community?

From ohloh.net ( https://www.ohloh.net/p/dojo ):

In a Nutshell, Dojo Toolkit...

    has had 18,548 commits made by 62 contributors
    representing 637,975 lines of code
    is mostly written in JavaScript
    with an average number of source code comments
    has a well established, mature codebase
    maintained by a very large development team
    with decreasing year-over-year commits
    took an estimated 172 years of effort (COCOMO model)
    starting with its first commit in February, 2007
    ending with its most recent commit 3 days ago

It has quite alive 'interest' mailing list. In this October 702 messages: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-interest/2012-October/thread.html

This summer they released version 1.8 and are working on version 2. Version 1.7, released in December 2011, undertook a major refactoring.

The project is maintained by a Dojo foundation. The main corporate contributor is probably SitePen (not sure).

What is the chance other projects in the distros we work with make the
decision to use Dojo? Do any of them already do? What is the experience?

I don't know about any. IMHO we can only guess. There are big differences in developers preferences. Some rather use more server technology like some jboss-based-framework or django, some a single page application (our web UI).

The only package which requires dojo in Fedora is php-ZendFramework. IDK if we can find what Fedora web apps are actually using it.
Petr Vobornik

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to