[Seaside] Brushes and state

[James Foster]

Mariano,

I'll be interested to see how this comes out. As I mentioned earlier,  
I started with a component and switched to a brush. I came to view the  
GoogleMap as a browser widget, something like a listbox, where you  
give it some data and let it draw itself. Yes, you can configure  
callbacks, but that isn't really different from other brushes. What  
sort of 'state' do you envision keeping with the map? Might that be  
better in a domain-specific component that wraps a map? I was able to  
implement over 40 examples and have not yet found a need to get more  
complex.

James

On Jun 18, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Mariano Montone wrote:

> Thanks Julian. I think a component will be ok.
>
> Mariano
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Julian Fitzell <jfitzell at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> Hi Mariano,
>
> Off the top of my head, if I were implementing a google maps  
> package, I would do it as a component or a painter (see below).  
> Brushes certainly aren't intended to be kept around so if you have  
> state to persist between requests that's not the way to go.
>
> There are people who like implementing everything as brushes but the  
> main functionality of brushes is that they can be selected in  
> arbitrary orders to nest content within each other, e.g.:
>
> html div: [ html span: [ html paragraph: 'foo' ] ].
>
> Unless you plan to do be able to do:
>
> html div: [ html googleMap: [ html paragraph: 'foo' ] ]
>
> (i.e. unless the thing you are creating allows content to be put  
> inside it) I don't think there's much advantage in making your own  
> brush. (The other reason to consider using brushes of course is that  
> they have more direct access to the document).
>
> Even if you don't need the benefits of components (see http://blog.fitzell.ca/2009/05/when-to-use-seaside-component.html 
>  ), you can just create a renderable object by implementing  
> #renderOn: and do:
>
> html render: (GoogleMaps new configSomeStuff; yourself)
>
> This process is made much clearer in 2.9 where you can subclass  
> WAPainter, implement #rendererClass to control what kind of renderer  
> you get passed (you might possibly implement the google maps thing  
> *using* one or more custom brushes and have your own renderer for  
> them), and implement #renderContentOn: as you would for a component.
>
> Hopefully that makes things clearer and not muddier. :)
>
> Julian
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Mariano Montone <marianomontone at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> Hello!,
>            I'm implementing an API for rendering Google Maps. I've  
> decided to implement it as a brush. That's because I'm just  
> generating javascript code. But now I have a problem: when adding  
> support for callbacks, I need to hold some state; for example, the  
> map the callback refers to. But I think brushes are not meant to  
> hold state, that is something left for the components mechanism,  
> isn't it? So I would like to know what would be the correct way of  
> implementing it in the framework. Should I implement maps as  
> components, or should I add state to my brushes; I may hold a state  
> in the callback block too, but I don't think that's good.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mariano
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside/attachments/20090618/f80f47f1/attachment.htm