On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Noah Tilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob, > > Quick update: I renamed the project to something shorter and catchier: > > https://github.com/noah/ocelot >
Hey, I like that! Was that a lucky accident? > Also, here is the documentation, which describes in detail how to use > the (cross-platform) executable jar: > > http://noah.github.com/ocelot/ > > Please check out the docs and let me know if anything doesn't work as > expected. > I've downloaded and am playing with the examples on Ubuntu. So far so good. The one thing I noticed is not example for creating a spreadsheet. A spreadsheet is just a table, so nothing conceptually different, in the basic case. -Rob > Thanks! > -Noah > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Noah Tilton <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> New code is up at github. This update brings a more ruby-esque >> (idiomatic) syntax to the DSL, as well as better coverage of Text >> documents, Presentations, Lists, and Tables. I have also added >> documentation to about 80% of the code. >> >> https://github.com/noah/odf-command-line-tools >> >> Remaining todos: 1) work out additional docs and any needed function >> stubs 2) cross-platform installer. I think you will agree that the >> code is easily extendable as it stands. >> >> Paradoxically, bundling jruby/java jar codes together has proven to be >> the hard part, so I will focus on making it cross-platform in the next >> week. >> >> Please take a look and let me know your thoughts. >> >> Thanks! >> -Noah >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Noah Tilton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Noah Tilton <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi Rob, >>>>> >>>>> I just pushed to Github, please see below for an explanation of the >>>>> changes and some questions regarding next steps. >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/noah/odf-command-line-tools >>>>> >>>> >>>> Great. I downloaded and gave it a try. Looks good. >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. Thanks for trying. Maven is great for managing Java project >>>>>> dependencies. Well, at least for pure Java projects targeting >>>>>> standard Java outputs like JAR's, WAR's, EAR's, etc. But the >>>>>> Java/JRuby combination may be more complicated. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm using Ubuntu 11.04 with bash. It isn't liking parts of that >>>>>> script. But I was able to modify it as follows and it worked fine: >>>>>> >>>>>> #!/bin/sh >>>>>> >>>>>> if [ ! -d ./jars ]; then >>>>>> >>>>>> echo "Downloading jars" >>>>>> mkdir -p ./jars >>>>>> cd jars >>>>>> >>>>>> wget >>>>>> http://mirrors.gigenet.com/apache//xerces/j/binaries/Xerces-J-bin.2.11.0.tar.gz\ >>>>>> >>>>>> http://apache.osuosl.org/incubator/odftoolkit/binaries/odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-bin.tar.gz >>>>>> >>>>>> for targz in *.tar.gz; do >>>>>> echo "Extracting $targz" >>>>>> tar zxf $targz >>>>>> done >>>>>> >>>>>> cd .. >>>>>> fi >>>>>> >>>>>> echo "Running test" >>>>>> >>>>>> JAVA_HOME="$(dirname $(dirname $(readlink -f $(which java))))" >>>>>> echo "set JAVA_HOME to $JAVA_HOME" >>>>>> CLASSPATH=./jars/xerces-2_11_0/xercesImpl.jar:./jars/xerces-2_11_0/xml-apis.jar:./jars/odftoolkit-0.5-incubating/simple-odf-0.7-incubating.jar:./jars/odftoolkit-0.5-incubating/odfdom-java-0.8.8-incubating.jar >>>>>> export CLASSPATH >>>>>> >>>>>> jruby lib/oclt.rb >>>>> >>>>> I incorporated your portability changes to test.sh, and renamed it to >>>>> setup.sh, to reflect the fact that it doesn't actually run the code -- >>>>> it merely downloads jars and sets environment variables. To run the >>>>> code from the odf-command-line-tools directory, type: >>>>> >>>>> source ./setup && jruby main.rb >>>>> >>>>> "source" is necessary because the script needs to export shell >>>>> variables in the parent shell (i.e., not a subshell). >>>>> >>>>> If you want to use rdoc to build the documentation you may need to run: >>>>> >>>>> % jruby -S gem install rdoc >>>>> >>>>> before running >>>>> >>>>> % rdoc --main * >>>>> >>>>> from the top level directory (odf-command-line-tools). >>>>> >>>>>> Two things: build env and runtime env. For runtime env we should be >>>>>> cross platform, right? For bulld env, cross platform is ideal, but I >>>>>> would not get bogged down on that. Linux is fine. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, Linux for build only; runtime will be cross-platform. Added to TODO >>>>> >>>>>> I'm looking forward to seeing more on the DSL. >>>>> >>>>> The initial version of the DSL has support for generating new Text >>>>> documents; loading modifying existing Text documents, iterating over >>>>> Paragraphs, changing mode and font attributes of new Paragraphs ... >>>>> This first version should give you a flavor of what the DSL might >>>>> eventually look like, and I hope it is general enough that we can >>>>> easily add other document types (e.g., Presentation). >>>>> >>>>> It's made up of 2 parts: the DSL proper (lib/oclt.rb) and a client >>>>> script (main.rb). >>>>> >>>>> Assuming you're okay with what I've done so far, I'd like the >>>>> discussion to focus on how the mapping of DSL methods => SimpleAPI >>>>> methods should look. A 1-1 mapping works "out of the box" with the >>>>> way the DSL is currently written. I.e., any SimpleAPI TextDocument >>>>> method can now be called from the DSL, and will work. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I noticed that. I had not taken a close look at Ruby before, but I'm >>>> impressed by how that kind of dispatch can be set up with only a >>>> little code. >>> >>> I like it too! >>> >>>>> So if we don't want to change the interface/API, all that's left to do >>>>> is write documentation and more examples. But that won't provide much >>>>> of an improvement over the original Java API, only those benefits >>>>> which Ruby provides at the most basic level before any "sugar" is >>>>> applied. In other words, while a 1-1 mapping works, it leads to >>>>> unnecessary initialization, overall verbosity, and (IMHO) is exactly >>>>> what a good DSL should seek to avoid! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right. So is your goal to make this me more "idiomatic" Ruby? Or to >>>> create a DSL that is either Ruby nor Simple API, but something more >>>> oriented to text processing? >>> >>> Yes, idiomatic Ruby is the way to go. I'd go one step further and say >>> "idiomatic Ruby DSL-esque". There are many good examples, Rake and >>> Buildr come to mind. This still leaves us a lot of freedom to tweak. >>> >>>> When we were designing the Simply API we tried to make it as easy and >>>> intuitive as possible, within the constraints of Java, and using an >>>> imperative programming style. >>>> >>>> One idea I had last night -- what if we inverted the problem? Instead >>>> of a command line script running against the document, what if we put >>>> the script *inside* the document? Does that help with any kinds of >>>> repetitive tasks, document automation, etc.? Now the mere location of >>>> the script doesn't matter. But a side benefit is that a script inside >>>> the document, inline in the text of a document, has a context that the >>>> user defines naturally via their word processor: >>>> >>>> "This confirms your order for %widget_count% widget(s)." >>>> >>>> This is then processed by a command line took that evaluates >>>> widget-count as a Ruby routine. Or we want to avoid the user writing >>>> code, what if we ultra-simplified it? For example, a document >>>> template that had some named styles that expressed both >>>> appearance/presentation as well as behaviour. Trivial example: a >>>> list style called "Sorted List". No word process has this, to my >>>> knowledge. But we could have that defined as a style. When the user >>>> applies it, nothing magic occurs. But later, on the command line, the >>>> document is processed by an app that applies the behaviours implied by >>>> the styles, and writes out a new document. One could do very simple, >>>> single-step operations that way. But is there a way to build up more >>>> complicated scenarios like this? In other words, what helps enable >>>> the power-user, scripter type to get some benefit of document >>>> automation? >>> >>> I think this idea could work. And it's consistent with the codebase >>> we already have. We could define some tags and a parser that would >>> call out to the jruby routines in the lib/oclt.rb file (that's just a >>> sketch, but I think it works). I can see a couple of problems with >>> this approach, however. First is tight coupling -- do we really want >>> the business logic inline with an XML document describing the >>> structure? Second is, how does something like this jive with the ODF >>> standard? It seems like embedding a bunch of tags into the document >>> might mess that up. >>> >>>>> As a next step, I propose creating a more concise set of keywords for >>>>> the TextDocument API, and working from there. I'm hoping we can >>>>> iterate very fast now that there is a working version. If we can come >>>>> up with (or better yet, find) some conventions for how to map a >>>>> standard API to a DSL, I can use that and hit the list when I have >>>>> specific questions. >>>>> >>>>> For an example of what I'm talking about, do we really need to say >>>>> "set_horizontal_alignment(HorizontalAlignmentType)" or will "center" >>>>> suffice? Should that really be done instead as a parameter in >>>>> add_paragraph()? (e.g., doc.add_paragraph(:alignment => :center)). >>>>> Should we let it work both ways for flexibility >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right. >>>> >>>>> At the same time, we don't want to take the sugar too far -- the >>>>> interface should be logical to end users without being too "cute". A >>>>> couple of examples of things I changed/added are: >>>>> >>>>> page_break instead of add_page_break; paragraphs as a new iterable >>>>> method. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right. All else being equal, it is best to be idiomatic Ruby. >>>> >>>> Another question: Are there any other Ruby libraries that it would >>>> make sense to bring in to the mix? For example, any that are text or >>>> language related, or even NLP? Google Translate interface? Stuff >>>> like that that would radically extend the capabilities with little >>>> incremental coding on your part. >>> >>> The code is an internal DSL whose host language is jRuby. Therefore, >>> any C Ruby code can be used -- just require a Gem, external library, >>> or part of the standard library. And because it's jRuby, Java >>> libraries and core are fair game, and really anything that can be >>> compiled into Java bytecode should work. Very flexible. >>> >>>>> The heavy lifting in the code is currently being done in the file >>>>> lib/oclt.rb, specifically the method_missing call. Inside I have some >>>>> logic that tests whether a certain method exists at runtime, and if it >>>>> does, delegates appropriately. If the method doesn't exist the >>>>> program bombs out, but there's no reason not to make it do something >>>>> more intelligent, like search the SimpleAPI for a method which is >>>>> similar to or begins with the given method name, and then perhaps give >>>>> the user an informative error message. >>>>> >>>>> More formally, I think the code as written is (loosely) an >>>>> implementation of the Adapter pattern >>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapter_pattern) but using open classes >>>>> rather than an explicit adapter class. In ruby this can be done a >>>>> number of ways, I was going for brevity. >>>>> >>>>> I invite your feedback, and the rest of the community too. Thanks and >>>>> enjoy the 4th! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Noah >>> >>> I'm going to keep hacking on the DSL in the main branch, and work out >>> a more idiomatic syntax and more examples. I'll aim for 100% Simple >>> API coverage (in terms of idiomatic functionality but with a more >>> idiomatic API; although the Simple API calls will still be available). >>> In addition, I will create a separate branch for your "embedded tags" >>> idea and see how it looks. I've got a dead laptop at home, but I'll >>> try to get you something by the end of the week. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> -- >>> Noah >> >> >> >> -- >> Noah > > > > -- > Noah
