1) Yes please! Cutting the Blip -> Document dependency would make the code cleaner.
Client side, I don't think that Blip::getDocument() is used. Undercurrent has its own DocumentRegistry to look up the document object for a particular blip, rather than getting it from the blip directly, in order to have client-side specialization of document behaviour like diff highlighting. I can't speak for the WIAB server though. Alternatively, the "proper" Java solution would be to make the conversation model generic in the document type. Conversation<D>, ConversationBlip<D>, ConversationThread<D> etc. That would mean that Blogger could use Converation<HtmlBlob>, WIAB client could use Conversation<ClientDocumentImpl>, and WIAB server could use Conversation<Document> or whatever it needs. I don't know if that solution would just add more convolution than it saves though. Generics can add a significant amount of unnecessary verbiage and wrangling, and plenty of engineers who should know better are afraid of them. 2) That does sound good, especially for development. But I don't think it can be called a good thing or a bad thing without knowing the impact on code size. It might be possible to have both, however. i.e., to have a build setup that has user-agent specific builds, with compile-time minimization, and also an all-agent build? It might take some GWT-fu to set that up. Regarding Walkaround, my guess is that if WIAB keeps working, Walkaround will keep working too. I don't think its use of Undercurrent has any extra needs beyond what WIAB does. Dan can correct me if I'm wrong. -Dave On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Patrick. > First of all - congrats on the Blogger improvement - it's really great to > see how GWave advancements slowly make it into mainstream. > Regarding your suggestion - can you maybe describe what the the possible > of the proposed change? Generally - removing dependencies - sounds great. > Also, if it's useful to your project, it can be also useful for others. > The only concern it about Walkaround project - which also uses > Undercurrent. > @David, can you please share your opinion? > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Patrick Coleman <patcole...@google.com>wrote: > >> Fellow wave-dev'ers; >> >> For those who missed the recent announcement, my current project (Blogger) >> just launched threaded commenting: >> http://buzz.blogger.com/2012/01/engage-with-your-readers-through.html >> >> The reason I'm emailing here though is that all the comment rendering code >> uses the Undercurrent wave-panel GWT library. >> (e.g. check out the DOM produced in the comments section of that post, it >> may look familiar). >> >> I'm aware that this alternate usage may add some constraints moving >> forwards with the codebase, so I was wondering if there was a generally >> recommended way of sharing code like this - e.g. are there any large >> changes planned to Undercurrent that mean I should fork my own copy first? >> Alternatively, if there are changes I hope to make, are they likely to >> help >> being submitted into the apache codebase? >> >> If it helps, the main two changes I'd hope to work on for our usage are: >> 1) Removing the dependency from Blip to Document >> - Comments are just static html, so I have a custom CommentDocument for >> this, but due to the interfaces it needs to >> pull in ContentDocument, MutableDocument and DocInitialization which >> bloats >> the library size >> 2) Adding an alternative to UserAgentStaticProperties that is actually >> dynamic - i.e. removes the requirement to have a different script per user >> agent. >> >> fwiw, thanks to all of those active in this community that've kept this >> code open and nicely usable for such a different feature such as this. >> >> - Pat Coleman >> > >
