Hi,
I've attached the patch for the method that I use.
Ben
2008/9/12 John Hjelmstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
