That's fair. So long as prefs.js doesn't parse the URL but instead accepts
only the prefs values the server provides, we're golden.
2008/9/12 Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2008/9/12 John Hjelmstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I could be misunderstanding, but it sounds like that's what Ben did --
> pass
> > (in the server) the defaults to setMessages_ with some special format,
> and
> > have prefs.js read them when no up_<key> values are provided on the URL.
> > Meanwhile, UP substitution is already handled by the server, with a merge
> > algorithm that presumably mirrors what Ben's does in JS.
>
>
> Yeah, and I think that's error prone. We should be doing the merging in
> just
> one place, or we're going to have bugs.
>
>
> >
> >
> > -John
> >
> > 2008/9/12 Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > That's not a complete solution because it skips user pref substitution.
> > The
> > > only thing that completely allows skipping filling in the user pref
> > > defaults
> > > in the url is to make the user prefs merge happen server side.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
