Care to post a patch?
2008/9/11 ben bonfil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My solution was indeed to pass the default values in the setMessages_
> array(like iGoogle), and modify prefs.js accordingly.
>
> Ben Bonfil
>
> On 9/12/08, John Hjelmstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only server-side code that touches
> > gadgets.Prefs initializes it with Messages (setMessages_), not Prefs at
> all,
> > all of which are initialized by parsing gadgets.util.getUrlParameters().
> >
> > I don't have any strong opinion on implementation particulars - either
> way
> > server-side code spits out defaults and some corresponding JS reads
> them...
> > assuming we want to support this in the first place.
> >
> > -John
> >
> > On 9/11/08, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> That's wholly unnecessary. If we want gadgets.Prefs to include defaults,
> >> we
> >> just need to make the server side code that outputs gadgets.Prefs
> properly
> >> merge in the defaults from the spec. There's no reason to add new client
> >> libraries.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:01 PM, John Hjelmstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Given that default values for a given gadget fixed in the spec, I
> think
> >> the
> >> > cleaner solution is to inject some kind of defaultPrefs object into
> the
> >> > gadget when rendering it, somewhat like gadgets.config.init() does.
> >> >
> >> > As implemented today (which admittedly isn't the cleanest impl, but
> >> that's
> >> > an orthogonal problem), that would mean modifying GadgetRenderingTask
> to
> >> do
> >> > something like:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> js.append("gadgets.Prefs.setDefaults(").append(jsonObjectRepresentingDefaultsOf(gadget.getSpec()).append(");\n");
> >> >
> >> > ...then augmenting features/core/prefs.js correspondingly to
> initialize
> >> > from
> >> > defaults when the up_<key> equivalent isn't available.
> >> >
> >> > --John
> >> >
> >> > On 9/10/08, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > (in case you are interested - don't feel pressured though :)
> >> > >
> >> > > samplecontainer.js actually already makes calls to the metadata
> >> servlet.
> >> > > see
> >> > > line 167 - the "requestGadgetMetaData" function. This came from a
> >> > different
> >> > > patch which gave the samplecontainer the ability to show gadget
> >> > > titles.
> >> > >
> >> > > - Caszsie
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Tamlyn Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > > Hey Tamlyn - do you think you could make this into a patch and
> >> attach
> >> > > it
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > a jira issue for Shindig?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The thing is I've done it from outside of gadgets.js so it's not
> >> > > > really patchable. Doing it in gadgets.js would mean making an ajax
> >> > > > call to fetch the metadata in the gadgets.container.addGadget
> method
> >> > > > and I'm not really sure how that would work since gadgets.ioisn't
> >> > > > available in the container (unless i've misunderstood).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm aware that you're keen to maintain clear separation between
> >> > > > Shindig and the JavaScript code that manages the layout/chrome but
> >> for
> >> > > > most people actually using Shindig I suspect this separation is
> >> rather
> >> > > > more theoretical than practical. I've been developing a drag &
> drop
> >> > > > layout/framework using jQuery, PHP and MySQL and I hope to open
> >> source
> >> > > > this once I get it working. This should be some time in September.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Tamlyn.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
