On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Ashesh Vashi < > ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, May 12, 2018, 02:58 Joao De Almeida Pereira < >> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >>> Hello Ashesh, >>> >>> 1. In TreeNode, we're keepging the reference of DOMElement, do we really >>>>> need it? >>>> >>>> As of right now, our Tree abstraction acts as an adapter to the >>>>> aciTree library. The aciTree library needs the domElement for most of its >>>>> functions (setInode, unload, etc). Thus this is the easiest way to >>>>> introduce our abstraction and keep the functionality as before - at least >>>>> until we decide that whether we want to switch out the library or not. >>>> >>>> I understand that. But - I've not seen any reference of domElement the >>>> code yet, hence - pointed that out. >>> >>> If you look at the function: reload, unload you will see that domNode >>> is used to communicate with the ACITree >>> >>> >>>> 2. Are you expecting the tree class to be a singleton class >>>> >>>> Since this tree is referenced throughout the codebase, considering it >>>>> to be a singleton seems like the most appropriate pattern for this >>>>> usecase. >>>>> It is very much the same way how we create a single instance of the >>>>> aciTree >>>>> library and use that throughout the codebase. Moreover, it opens up >>>>> opportunities to improve performance, for example caching lockups of >>>>> nodes. >>>>> I’m not a fan of singletons myself, but I feel like we’re simply keeping >>>>> the architecture the same in the instance. >>>> >>>> Yeah - I don't see any usage of tree object from anywhere. >>>> And, we're already creating new object in browser.js (and, not >>>> utitlizing that instance anywhere.) >>> >>> >>> You are right, we do not need to export tree as a singleton for now. The >>> line that exports the variable tree can be remove when applying the >>> patch number 2. >>> >>> >>> I think we addressed all the concern raised about this patch. Does this >>> mean that the patch is going to get committed? >>> >> Yes - from me for 0002. >> > > Can you do that today? > Done. -- Thanks, Ashesh > > -- > Dave Page > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com > Twitter: @pgsnake > > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
