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 17:05:06 GMT
This is actually what we do all over the place throught the config file.

The advantage of specifying the rendering class in the tag is that no code
at all has to be written (same for DI if you ignore the definition in the
XML file). Databinding requires writting code in every page flow if you want
to apply a non-default rendering. That is actually heavier weight in my
thinking. With DI (or specifying the class) no code is written in the
PageFlow, the rendering is named and looked up. This is a much nicer
solution to specifying the name of the class because it loosely coupled.
Both the page flow solution and the class name as attribute are not.

On 10/18/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, I could see a layer that allowed all of these types of things to be
> set through DI. But I also see value and simplicity in our current
> databinding-to-instances approach. Are we saying that the *only* way to
> control whitespace around tree elements would be to create some class
> and wire it up through DI? This seems heavy to me -- all of a sudden
> you *can't* just do your page editing within your page and page flow.
>
> If we're talking about a change across the entire tag set, could we
> consider offering both methods (databinding and DI) in all cases?
>
> Rich
>
> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
> > Ah, that's right -- this part of the tree works differently than it
> >does in the data grid. The effect is the same -- the dependent object
> >is referenced by some name from the tag and the tag could take care of
> >calling out for the injection. The grid could do the same thing in
> >that case.
> >
> > In order to do this, NetUI would need a generalized way of calling
> >out to a DI implementation a la the ControlFactory abstraction.
> >Probably worth building that as it would also give us a hook for how
> >to wire-in ways of injecting Controls, Spring Beans, and other
> >dependencies into Page Flows, UI elements, and so on.
> >
> > But, I agree that there's no reason to add more stuff to the NetUI
> >config XML document -- this is a more scalable, flexible, and
> >cusomizable solution.
> >
> >Eddie
> >
> >
> >
> >On 10/18/05, Daryl Olander <dolander@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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