beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daryl Olander <dolan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] BEEHIVE-974: Allow users to define their own tree renderer
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:10:49 GMT
You would bind to a named object that would be created using DI as described
earlier in the thread. It's not injected into the tag, it's assocated with
the Tree element through the ITreeRoot interface.

On 10/18/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@bea.com> wrote:
>
>
> Agreed, that's the ultimate "right" solution here, though it's not clear
> where the dependency
> would be injected in the context of an arbitrary JSP tag. We can't inject
> this into the tag handler
> because of pooling of handlers implemented on some containers. In the case
> of the data grid, it
> would certainly be possible to inject it into the top-level DataGridConfig
> object that is used
> throughout grid rendering, but you'd still need to refer to it somehow.
> And, not all of our tags
> have that same abstraction.
>
> In lieu of DI, referencing the object is a pretty non-invasive way of
> supporting the functionality.
>
> Eddie
>
>
>
>
>
> Daryl Olander wrote:
> > I'll go back and say the right solution to these problems is Dependency
> > Injection.
> >
> > On 10/18/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Right; the data grid does something similar with:
> >>
> >> <netui-data:dataGrid ... dataGridConfig="${servletContext.fooGridConfig
> }">
> >> ...
> >> </netui-data:dataGrid>
> >>
> >> this allows the page author to define a data grid config object that
> >> could be shared between data grids in a site as a way to provide a
> >> single point of configuration for a look & feel, pager renderer, and
> >> behavior for a type of grid. They can be shared across users by
> >> putting them into ServletContext.
> >>
> >> So, there's precedent for doing it this way, and it's worked out
> >> pretty well. :)
> >>
> >> Eddie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/18/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Right, I was suggesting something like this:
> >>> renderer=${pageFlow.treeRenderer}
> >>>
> >>> Often it wouldn't need to be connected to instance state, but that
> >>> doesn't strike me as out of bounds. And it would line up better with
> >>> the way we do things elsewhere (e.g., the way you bind to the tree
> >> itself).
> >>> Rich
> >>>
> >>> Daryl Olander wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I guess I'm not following this, you can do something like
> >> renderClass="${
> >>>> pageFlow.treeRenderer}" where tree renderer is a string to the class.
> >> Are
> >>>> you suggesting that this actually be an instance of TreeRenderer?
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/17/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I agree on both counts. My main question at this point is, should
we
> >>>>> use databinding instead? Having the classname in the tag attribute
> >>>>> seems strange to me... and at the very least it's not a pattern
that
> >> we
> >>>>> use consistently across the tag set.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Daryl Olander wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, my opinion is that we should use some type of Dependency
> >>>>>> Injection, but currently there is no dependencies on things
like
> >> Spring,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think this feature is significant enough to push us
in that
> >>>>>> direction. If we had a bunch of these type behavior (which I
> actually
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> think
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> we do) then I'd prefer a design that used a name that was looked
up
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> through
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> dependency injection. I just don't think adding this type of
stuff
> to
> >> the
> >>>>>> netui-config file as a general solution is a good thing. We
do have
> >> the
> >>>>>> attribute to set the renderer for the full webapp in there,
but I
> >> don't
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> want
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> to start pushing DI behavior into it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/17/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have one quick (and general) question to ask here. Are
we all
> >>>>>>> comfortable with having classnames in tag attributes (vs.
> >> databinding to
> >>>>>>> objects when necessary, and otherwise controlling rendering
> through
> >>>>>>> normal value attributes)? It strikes me as strange, but
I haven't
> >> come
> >>>>>>> up with a hard argument against it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In general, is this something we want to do? Does anyone
else have
> >> the
> >>>>>>> same reaction to this? One alternative is to require databinding
> to
> >>>>>>> some object that provides the right functionality.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In any case, I think we should decide this and be consistent
> across
> >> the
> >>>>>>> board.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rich
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Carlin Rogers wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I created a JIRA issue to cover the changes discussed
earlier
> this
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> month
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the dev alias about allowing control of formatting and
white
> space
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> NetUI tree rendering. The outcome I came away with was
to provide
> a
> >> way
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> override the default NetUI TreeRenderer implementation.
The
> >> following
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> description I included in the JIRA issue along with
a patch.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...First off, I refactored the TreeRenderer class and
its
> render()
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> method
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> that it can more easily be extended allowing simple
overrides of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> methods
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> that format and control white space surrounding the
elements that
> >> make
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> up
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the markup for a tree node. There are now prefix and
suffix
> >> routines
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> used
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> append formatting (or additional markup if desired)
around each
> of
> >> the
> >>>>>>>> components in the markup of a node.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The <netui:tree> tag has been modified to include
a new attribute
> >> for
> >>>>>>>> setting a desired TreeRenderer to use on the given tree.
In
> >> addition,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> beehive-netui-config schema, ConfigUtil, JspTagConfig,
and
> >> TagConfig
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> classes
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> have been modified such that NetUI can be configured
with a
> >> different
> >>>>>>>> default tree renderer, extending the NetUI TreeRenderer,
for the
> >> Web
> >>>>>>>> application. It is an optional configuration and the
config has
> our
> >>>>>>>> TreeRenderer as a default value. This gives an app developer
two
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> options.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They can override the NetUI TreeRenderer for the entire
> application
> >> and
> >>>>>>>> override it on a tree by tree bases. A renderer named
in the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> <netui:tree>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> tag attribute will always be used regardless of the
renderer in
> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> NetUI
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> configuration.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The TreeRenderer used to have some package protected
derived
> >> classes
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> used
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> for handling issues specific to the execution of NetUI
code path.
> >> There
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> a renderer for the actual tag and a servlet version
for the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> XmlHttpRequest
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> via the TreeCRI. Instead of having two different renderers
and
> >> worrying
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> or if they'd be extended and the desired special handling
would
> be
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> managed,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> this functionality was moved down to a TreeRenderSupport
object
> >> that
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> was
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> set
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> on a given TreeRenderer. Then, no matter the TreeRenderer,
we'd
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> delegate
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> special handling to either of two subclasses of the
support
> object
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> handle
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> tag or XmlHttpRequest specific issues... such as error
reporting.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The patch also includes a new test to ensure the renderer
> >> overriding
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> works
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> for runAtClient and expandOnServer.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In reviewing this patch...
> >>>>>>>> - Do I need to expose more of the TreeRenderer data
and methods
> as
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> protected
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> rather than private to allow for better sub classing?
> >>>>>>>> - How or will we version the netui config schema in
v1.1 to
> manage
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> optional element?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Carlin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message