On 11/01/2012 09:25 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 10/31/2012 11:13 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:20 PM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 10/30/2012 06:48 AM, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
On 10/29/2012 4:27 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
I would like to make a bigger change in Web UI. Basically I think
would benefit from using a Dojo toolkit, a JS framework. I would
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.
I don't know about the timing, but I agree we need a better framework.
This was also discussed some time ago with Adam.
Looked into Dojo. My take was that the support of JQuery was more
important than what Dojo provided. I still feel that is the case. If
you are going to adopt a framework, choose one that is built on JQuery.
We also wanted to make the Entity definition as declarative as possible,
and we didn't want to be driven by another developers view of M-V-C. I
still feel this is most important.
There are certainly things I would want to tighten up in the IPA UI. I
am not sure that the construction policy (no new keywords) was the
absolute best choice.
It may solve several existing issues in Web UI architecture/code
* incorporates a lot of functionality we don't have to write
* is considered to be a framework for enterprise class web
* reuse an establish library which may be known to more developers
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,
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
(crossroads, hasher, underscore, amd-utils,. IMO Dojo is the best fit
I have not used Dojo or any of the above frameworks so I can't really
say anything good/bad about them, but backbone.js also seems to be a
popular lightweight alternative if we aren't planning to use the
We should consider whether a framework will work nicely with others or
whether it will require us to use it for everything.
I fear that with backbone.js we would have to rewrite the whole UI to
not bend the framework much. From looking at examples IDK how would we
incorporate it. I think it would be a nice candidate if we would
rewrite UI from scratch.
I like Dojo because we can make the changes gradual. In theory we can
just utilize the things from dojo which we want and leave the rest
If possible, we should try to address the issues below independently
from each other (even if we end up using Dojo for everything) while
we're still learning about it. Some of the issues are actually general
design issues, so it won't be solved simply by converting the
Try to avoid refactoring the code and converting the framework at the
same time because the patch could become very big and hard to review.
I agree. Originally I was just looking if there is some small library
which has a reasonable implementation for bindable object store. To
keep with saying: "best code is the one you don't have to write". I
ended with Dojo because it can do a lot of stuff we might need in
time. Of course all of dojo functionality can be replaced with other
libraries but I think it's better to use one (and because of AMD
modules, we can create small custom build) and not to worry about
making them all work together.
From Dojo I would like to use:
### 1) Build system and AMD modules
low file count and minimum size of files. We share one file for
components to keep the file count low. It leads to very long files.
harder to maintain than separate files for each component. AMD
and a builder can solve it.
AMD modules  encourages to use one file per component. Then a dojo
builder can be used to modify the declaration of a module for file
I like the concept of modules, but make sure whatever you use works well
with the debugger. Keep development as straightforward as possible. I
would take a performance hit at application load time if it means that
the user sees the same thing as the developer: it will pay off in the
Dojo builder  is quite powerfull, it can define 'layers' which
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
.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
to budle in our source tarball but they won't be in output rpms so
shouldn't break Fedora packaging rules. Both are BSD licensed.
would need a patch to support Uglify (it's commited in dojo upstream
trac but I want to incorporated it in latest stable version).
Just want to reiterate the power of being able to dop development
withouth having to do a build. DO NOT MAKE A DELIBERATE BUILD STEP FOR
The localization information is not necessarily accessable to the
browser. The only thing we can depend on is that the server gets it,
and then sends back the strings. That was the rationale for the current
I suppose now if we want to test the static page without web server we
will need to build the pages first?
It's not necessary. For developing purposes it is better to use
uncompiled files. Loader can load each separate file (if it's AMD
module) if it isn't in bundle.
If we use Dojo do we need to include Dojo js files into IPA source, or
can we use the ones from Dojo rpm and only include it at build time?
I'm for including it because we can create a build with the parts we
actually use. Dojo builder isn't in the rpm.
AFAIK the dojo rpm contains already built files. It has a core
dojo.js file which contains basic modules to work but the rest of
modules are separated. IDK if it can be used in a build process. I
have to test it.
There's also RequireJS (http://requirejs.org/).
require.js is just AMD loader but it uses r.js as optimizer. r.js
seems more lightweight than dojo builder. I would stick with dojo
loader and builder if we use other dojo features.
### 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,
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
some model object with bidirectional binding capabilities would be
Dojo provides a extensible object store . I would like to use
store' and 'observable' and extend it with 'dirty-check'
Backbone also has similar mechanisms for events and sync.
### 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
class may be called before inheritance is finished).
Dojo has a class system  which is easy to use and support
inheritance, mixins and overrided function calls.
At first glance Backbone seems to be better in this area, but Dojo
also be sufficient for our purposes.
Backbone seems to have advantage in calling super class' constructor.
It is not recommended in Dojo.
There's going to be some challenges converting the current class
framework. Like you said, the current initialization isn't well
structured, so we might need to fix that first before converting the
class framework. And then we use 'that' instead of 'this', and
both, and they get confusing, so we'd have to be very careful when
converting them. Also, the current way to call a method in super class
needs to be fixed.
We can come with some strategy to keep patch reviews simple.
* move initialization stuff to init method (or more fine-grained) and
use builder to create and instance (in some parts its already done),
this way we eliminate statements in class declaration (except method
declaration and overriding)
* change to the classes: change that to this/self(to keep context in
* eliminate method overrides with inherited() calls.
* put init calls to constructor
* change builder again
### 4) Localization
Web UI and pages in config, migrate and error folder are not
until successful login. It's because Web UI gets localized strings by
API call which needs prior authentication. We should use other
provide localized config, error and login pages.
I'd like better inversion of control in the JS code in general. But you
don't need to move to Dojo to do that. As I recall, Dojo "wiring up"
was about a 1/2 way solution (but it has been a long time since I looked)
Dojo has a easy to use localization solution . Basically
defined in .js files as modules, translations in subfolders. Dojo
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
in config and login pages.
We would have to make a script to translate the format to a format
usable by transifex.
A possible alternative is jquery-i18n-properties
### 5) Navigation
Our navigation code is limited to IPA entities. Introducing
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
not strictly related to Dojo, but I wanted to mention it.
Better handling of pkeys may fix `#2741 [ipa webui] Intermittent
- 'cn' is required; limits exceeded for this query`
Backbone also has router and history.
### 6) Easier unit tests
By utilizing AMD modules, Localization, Model binding we might be
to write unit tests of widgets easier. Now we have to simulate
facets, fields, strings loaded from JSON-RPC...
Yes, that would be great.
I proposed it, so the question is mainly for Endi or Adam, if he is
interested (added Cc).
### 7) Separation of framework and IPA
We often talk about separating Web UI framework and IPA related
We can do it along with this refactoring.
Yes, but it might need to be fixed separately.
I don't want to this all stuff in one patch :).
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
change this code, so I don't want to replace it with Dojo widget
- too big effort. So in the result the HTML output should not be
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
transmitted to browser which is really bad.
This is probably the easiest part. The next steps could be
untangle. So be ready for a long haul. :)
The harder part is not to populate git and rpm with a lot of
third-party stuff. We need to convince dojo builder to use uglify.js
under rhino to avoid using of closure compiler or shrink-safe which
are not and probably will not be bundled in fedora and RHEL and
definitely we don't want to bundle them.
I'm thinking about making a script which would create WebUI-devoloper
* checkout dojo/dojo and dojo/util git repository to 1.8.1 tag
* create a symbolic links to the tag
* apply custom patches on dojo/util (there will definitely be one)
* include in FreeIPA git only builded dojo.js (in the case we have
separate files for dojo.js and freeipa.js (just a suggestion of name))
* will investigate if we can build the builder and include it in git
for rpm builds.
We can of course include into our git a whole 1.8.1 dojo/dojo and
dojo/util but I would rather avoid it because it's a LOT of files.
2) separate components to individual files and transform then into
modules. We might change namespaces and dependencies to separate
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.
Still sounds scary... What is the general recommendation? Are the
arguments for or against Dojo convincing?
Just to add:
The question is whether we want to use third party code to solve some
issues or we want to write everything ourselves. Everything I wrote
above can be solved by us but it will probably take much more time.
Dojo itself won't fix our problems it just provides means to fix
them. As Enti wrote, for the problems we have, it can be replaced by
multiple libraries combined(require.js, r.js, backbone.js,
I don't want to repeat myself much so adding just some dojo-related
pros and cons:
* third party code - we need to watch updates, sec issues
* more complex build of UI which eventually needs more unit tests
(basically I want some build with or without Dojo)
* third party code - don't have to reinvent the wheel
* establish library (good docs, some books were writen)
* using good modular structure, we can pick the parts we actually
want, when we want (loader, builder, class system, object store,
localization, modular system)
My take away is the a Framework is the right direction, but Dojo is not
the right Framework. I would look to see if someone has built the
equivalent on top of JQuery. If not, pull in the various pieces from
JQuery based projects and move forward with that. I think you are right
to focus on unit tests and modularity. But I think at this point, you
would be better off with an incremental approach.
Freeipa-devel mailing list