I'm new to the fedext-universe. By now, I've created a set of content elements, and they work fine.
There is one drawback though: One set of content elements has some fields in common, and these fields are rather complicated. Usually, I'd move their definition to a partial, but that isn't possible in flux forms. The beginners guide states
Flux templates can use Layouts and
Partials - but a Flux form cannot
be split into Partial templates.
Is there any way to avoid redefining these fields over and over again? Among other things, I've tried to use the <vhs:render.inline> viewhelper along with a custom viewhelper, returning the fluid-definition of the fields, but I can't get that to work.
Flux 7.0 will bring the option to place fields and sheets into Partial templates - if you are currently in a development project, I recommend trying it out from the development branches on Github:
https://github.com/FluidTYPO3/flux/tree/development
Flux 7.0 also will bring the option to create PHP classes which for example create ready-made sheets with a bunch of fields - such a class would be ideal to reuse, simply requiring one PHP class and one Fluid ViewHelper. Such an approach would be more efficient when your forms are rendered, but of course is much more technically demanding than a Partial template.
EDIT: though not yet documented, creating custom sheets involves two simple steps: 1) create a subclass of FluidTYPO3\Flux\Form\Container\Sheet and a subclass of FluidTYPO3\Flux\ViewHelpers\Form\SheetViewHelper - then include your namespace in the template, use your own ViewHelper instead of a flux:form.sheet (and add additional fields if you need them) and then inside the Sheet object, use the $this->createField() method from within object initialization, to automatically add any number of fields with predefined names, labels etc.
Related
I'm currently looking for a way to capture only svelte components on the DOM tree during development mode. I can see that we I run npm run dev all elements and conponents have the "class='svelte-somerandomID'". Does this only happen in development mode?
Yes, it's only in during development that all elements get a scoping class -- and only with some tools. Actually it's a hack we've added in vite-plugin-svelte to enable more power CSS only HMR.
The classes you're referring to are what Svelte uses to make the CSS in a component apply only to the elements of this component. It adds a class that is unique to the component to all elements that can be affected by the component's CSS, and it also modifies your CSS rules to add the same class to them.
Normally the compiler only adds the scoping class to elements that can actually be targeted by the existing CSS rules in your component. If you really want all the elements in a component to have the scoping class, you can use the same trick that I linked to above: add the following rule to your component's CSS.
* {}
By default the generated class names are a hash of the component's CSS content. But you can also customize them with the cssHash compiler option. Note that vite-plugin-svelte also changes how the class names are generated, to be based on the file name instead of the content.
Since every element in the component would be targeted by this roule, this will cause the Svelte compiler to add the scoping class to all the elements.
If you wanted to automatically generalize this to every element of every component, you may want to do it with a preprocessor (if you need some inspiration, the code I've linked too actually implement this with a preprocessor).
I'm not sure if this is what you really want though. For one thing, only elements get a scoping class: components don't get a scoping class, because components don't have dedicated elements in the DOM (only the ones you may or may not add via the component's markup). The above trick would only give you a mean to select every element of a Svelte component. There might probably be easier or cleaner ways to achieve what you really want. For example, a simple wrapping component, or an action, that would use wrappingElement.querySelectorAll('*') or something...
If I create html template element which contains several css class definitions and then clone this template into 1000 instances using owns shadow DOMs, what happens?
I've experimented and I'm not sure if it creates also 1000 identical css class definitions in memory, what would not be efficient.
In Correct way to apply global styles into Shadow DOM is discussed duplicating of styles. Yes, all styles are applied to the elements, thus they are duplicated regardless of whether they are created using template or not. But what about class definitions? Are they shared between template instances or are they duplicated?
I've been working on a component and currently I'm trying to do different things based on the selector chosen for the component.
So basically if I have a component with this structure
myComponent/
dialog.xml
myComponent.jsp
altView.jsp
I know that if I have a Node with resourceType myComponent I can request the alt view via browser by requesting "path/to/component/content.altView.html" and everything is hunky dory.
Similarly I can do a cq include and do something like:
# with cq include
<cq:include path="my/path.altView" resourceType="myComponent"/>
# or with sling include
<sling:include path="my/path" resourceType="myComponent" replaceSelectors="altView"/>
However, when I'm handling the request, I've seen some interesting behavior when looking at the RequestPathInfo Object.
For example, if we look at all 3 of the above cases I might have something like this:
# http://path/to/component/content.altView.html
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getSelectors(); // {altView}
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getExtension(); // html
# <sling:include path="my/path" resourceType="myComponent" replaceSelectors="altView"/>
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getSelectors(); // {altView}
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getExtension(); // html
# <cq:include path="my/path.altView" resourceType="myComponent"/>
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getSelectors(); // []
slingRequest.getRequestPathInfo().getExtension(); // altView
I understand why the cq:include returns different results (we're making a request to my/path.altView and .altView coincidentally serves as the extension in this case). I'm curious if there is a normalized why to pull "altView" (or the selected view) regardless of if it's been used as an extension or selector. Or if this is normal and I just need to check both the extensions and selectors individually.
i.e
selectors = get selectors();
if selectors
do stuff
else check extensions
do stuff
Again thank you very much for your insights, this community is awesome.
[EDIT]
In response to an answer, I thought I'd give a little more context to what I'm doing. Basically our component structure is set up so that each of our components has an associated Java Class that handles the business logic. (I.E. apps/myapp/components/myComponent will map to com.mypackage.components.MyComponent) That said, within my component's Class I need to handle the control flow differently depending on how the component was called (i.e. what selectors/extensions/etc). For example, if my component was called normally I'd do the base behavior, but if it was called with selector (for exmaple) "altView" I would need to handle the alternative view differently, and in this alternative view different data will be available, etc.
My question was along the basis that it seems that i can give the "path" attribute of a "cq:include" tag the selector I want to use:
<cq:include path="my/path.altView" resourceType="myComponent"/>
However, when I check my RequestPathInfo in my component class to decide workflow, "altView" is returned as the extension, not within the String[] selectors. Note, the above compiles fine, and it selectors the correct .jsp file for rendering, the RequestPathInfo object just stores the data in a different place.
I'm starting to guess that places the selector into the path attribute works because the selectors and extensions modifiers alter the behavior vary similarly. mycomponent.altView.html resolves to altView.jsp whereas if I was to do mycomponent.altView it would also attempt to resolve a mycomponent/altView.jsp just as it would do the same for mycomponent.xml to mycomponent/XML.jsp
It seems like you're kind of working around Sling resolution. The easiest way to do "different things based on selector" in a given component (let's say my/new/component) is to create different renderers.
For example, say I am requesting /content/app/page.html, and on that page was the component my/new/component. Or if I request /content/app/page.selector.html, I want a slightly different experience for my/new/component.
In the cq:component, I would create two JSPs: component.jsp and component.selector.jsp. Sling will automatically know, based on the selector in the request, which renderer to use. Obviously each renderer can produce a different experience.
The same is true for extension. In the example, component.jsp and component.selector.jsp are actually equivalent to component.HTML.jsp and component.selector.HTML.jsp. The HTML is just implied. However, you could do component.XML.jsp and component.selector.XML.jsp and Sling will again, pick the most relevant selector, based on the selector(s) and extension of the request.
Now, what if you don't want the selector to show up in the page request's URL (in my opinion you shouldn't)...
You can include your component using sling:include and add the selector, like you've done.
The caveat is that sling:include works a little differently than cq:include, so only use this when you need to. Instead, you could also use Sling mapping to hide the selector from the user. The majority of the time I would recommend this approach.
I'm not sure what you were trying to do with adding the selector to the "path" attribute. I don't think that would do anything. The "path" is defining the resource name (and the node name if the resource is not synthetic). Including the selector in that wouldn't do anything, except make the resource name include a period and the selector.
My question was along the basis that it seems that i can give the
"path" attribute of a "cq:include" tag the selector I want to use:
<cq:include path="my/path.altView" resourceType="myComponent"/> However, when I check my RequestPathInfo in my component class to
decide workflow, "altView" is returned as the extension, not within
the String[] selectors.
As opposed to the cq:include tag, you could alternatively use sling:include tag, which provides attributes to modify the selectors & suffix on the request:
<sling:include resourceType="myComponent" path="my/path" addSelectors="altView"/>
or
<sling:include resourceType="myComponent" path="my/path" replaceSelectors="altView"/>
If you already have selectors on the request that you don't want to apply to myComponent.
In terms of the differences between Sling include & CQ include, there seems to be very little, apart from the latter also supporting script inclusion. From the docs:
Should you use <cq:include> or <sling:include>?
When developing AEM components, Adobe recommends that you use
<cq:include>.
<cq:include> allows you to directly include script files
by their name when using the script attribute. This takes component
and resource type inheritance into account, and is often simpler than
strict adherence to Sling's script resolution using selectors and
extensions.
I'm trying to document a C# project using Doxygen.
With the default configurations, after generating the HTML output, this is what I get for the namespace documentation.
The output adds both Classes and Interfaces to the same list.
I've tried changing some of the configurations, for instance trying to set OPTIMIZE_OUTPUT_JAVA=YES to see if something changed, but nothing seems to change.
Do you know if it is possible to generate an output with two different lists, one for classes, other for interfaces, and possibly another for enums?
Thanks.
You could do this manually with pages.
DISABLE_INDEX = YES
GENERATE_TREEVIEW = NO
Then manually create pages for each of your categories and include the objects you want on each page.
I want to make a table of data in a UiBinder. I need programmatic access so I can add data at runtime, but I'd like my designer to have access to header names, column styles, etc, in the ui.xml file.
Is there a solution that meets these needs? A Grid perfectly satisfies my programmatic access, but I don't see a way to specify rows or cells in a Grid from the ui.xml.
I'd let the designers change the style via CSS files: Either include those in your host page, or use CssResource in a ClientBundle.
The header names etc. can be provided e. g. by properties files via GWT's internationalization Constants (even if you only want to support one language).
If you want to go one step further, and let the designer specify, which columns to show, and in which order, then it might be a good idea to create your own widget. Maybe the CricketScores example serves as a good starting point on how to use an XML attribute to specify the columns from your ui.xml.