I'm asking myself if I can change the .mustache templates to use my own html in my Gollum-wiki. If so it doesn't seem to documented (or am I just blind?).
I mean this: https://github.com/gollum/gollum/blob/master/lib/gollum/templates/layout.mustache
Can I override it or is the only way to have a different markup to use a different wiki software?
It is possible, you can simply:
Make your changes to the templates you need and put them on a directory of your choice
Also copy any other (probably unmodified) templates that Gollum requires (this is a bit clunky, see Gollum's issue #1221) to that directory
Specify the template-dir option when launching Gollum
That will make Gollum to search for templates only in that location. At the time of writing, there is no fallback template location, or a way to override single templates. In any case, just copying all templates to template-dir will do exactly what you need.
Related
Is there a such thing as a preprocessor whose statements, once processed, disappear completely and get replaced by the target language syntax permanently?
I want to research it on the web but I don't know what term to search for. If I search for "code generator", "templating language", "preprocessor directives", "mixins", "annotations" I get generators whose input becomes the source of truth.
The closest thing I can think of is a macro.
What I'm trying to do
I often have to write code that is verbose and unnecessary manual labor and am looking for a smarter way to input at least the majority of it and have it automatically transformed and only source-control the output (and hand edit if necessary). For example:
Java code - Instead of writing getters/setters, javadoc (perhaps the transformer can be a maven plugin)
HTML - I just want to add URLs, and have my preprocessor automatically convert them to links, images, videos, audio etc. depending on the file extension with some regex substitution (currently I run a perl script via a cron job)
I just want to use it as my own shorthand and not enforce it in my project and make the output editable so that others have to learn a new framework or language (like Protobuf, Stringtemplate, GWT, C hash-defines, PHP, JSP etc).
There should be no direct clue that I used a template/preprocessor to generate it.
What you want is a "program transformation system". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_transformation. (This is a superset of "transpilers" [ugly term]).
A good source-to-source transformation system will let you apply rewrite rules of the form of:
if you see *this*, replace it by *that* if *this_condition*.
You can then take your source code, and run a set of rewrite rules across that code to change it.
The resulting code is "transformed"; the rewrite rules are not visible.
It seems like Transpiler is one way to describe it.
This is for CakePHP 3.0
I want to encapsulate some nontrivial php logic to be called (reused) several times within one .ctp file for one controller action. I'm trying to figure out the most elegant way of doing it.
I have a few thoughts, none of which seem very elegant:
$this in the CTP file execution context is class View. Put methods on the View class to call as $this->function() within the .ctp file. This seems like the wrong division of labor, especially since helpers seem designed for this. Plus the functions would be exposed to all ctp files.
Create a helper. This seems like the "best" way to go, but that helper is always loaded and exposed to all .ctp files, which seems like it violates containment since the logic is only relevant to one action's view. In the absence of a better solution, this is the route I'm taking.
Create a subclass of View for this element/model and put the logic there, to be accessed as in (1). This seems like the most elegant solution, but it appears that subclassing View is intended for alternate media (eg PDF), and I can't see how to direct Cake to use that class when manufacturing the view for a given controller's action.
Shove the function inline in the .ctp file. I'm not even sure if this will work correctly, and it seems ugly to put functions in a .ctp file.
Any advice?
Well, you're not explaining what kind of super complex logic you want to use there so I would say go for 3). It is very well possible, you can load helpers in a view files:
$this->loadHelper('MyFancyLogic');
You can also checkout view cells. But again, you're not explaining what problem exactly you try to solve it's hard to recommend anything specific. So I would say it's a helper or a view cell.
I want to be able to store multiple FlowDocuments within a single package, including images, etc. within each document. However, none of the methods I've seen for saving (and loading) Xaml FlowDocuments seem capable of this.
TextRange.Save with DataFormats.Xaml strips images and other embedded content
TextRange.Save with DataFormats.XamlPackage creates a whole new package, rather than allowing me to treat the document and included images as parts within the package I'd be storing it in
XamlWriter looks like it could be good for this, but I can't figure out how to find all the embedded objects for putting in their own parts (although I certainly know how to handle them once I've found them). On the other end, I haven't a clue how to make everything load properly later on.
It's pretty annoying that there's no one-stop way of serializing a FlowDocument and its images, etc. to a PackagePart. If anyone's figured out a good way of doing this, how'd you pull it off?
UPDATE 2011-07-03 00:22: Using XamlWriter and some extra code from this question I've been able to build a happy little OPC-compliant package which can hold multiple FlowDocuments including their images, as PackageParts. However, going the other way (from PackagePart to FlowDocument) is failing, because no matter how I try to load the document, I get XamlParseExceptions telling me that
'Initialization of 'System.Windows.Media.Imaging.BitmapImage' threw an exception.'
So, the question now becomes, how do I manhandle XamlReader.Load and/or my part's stream in order to get the related images loaded properly?
Figured it out. The solution is to manually process the Xaml document before handing it over to XamlReader. Images (and other elements stored as their own PackageParts) need to have the BitmapImage.UriSource property set to include the package Uri (for example, "./Image1.png" in /Content/Document.xaml to "pack://file:,,,C:,Projects,Package.pak/Content/Image1.png").
Two caveats, however:
There's an issue with PackUriHelper.Create(Uri,Uri) however. Instead of using
PackUriHelper.Create(packUri, part.Uri))
you have to use
new Uri(packUri.ToString() + value)
where value is part.Uri with the initial / removed. If you don't do this, instead of getting a proper Uri like above, you get one with an additional comma after the package file name, which confuses and annoys XamlReader.
You need to use FileShare.Read when opening the package, as XamlReader will try and open it itself. By default, Package.Open locks out anyone else trying to open the package, and XamlReader.Load will throw a WebException if it can't get into the package itself.
The current XML Helper in CakePHP doesn't give you the ability to specify if you want the whitespace to be significant or non-significant. Normally it wouldn't matter, but I'm working with a strict API that requires certain values to have no excess characters surrounding the value (no \n's or \t's). I'd like to modify the Cake source to support this ability, and if anyone has done this before and has any tips or advise on how to start, I'd appreciate it. Actually I believe the most helpful thing would be if someone has a flowchart of how Cake comes together (ie: starts in index.php and flows through router.php or what-not). I'd like to get a better understanding of how Cake is constructed (even from a high level).
Thanks!
If you want to change one of the built-in helpers, just copy it into your /app/views/helpers/ directory and edit it from there. The version in your app will be used instead of the original.
Ui:include and xhtml based tag (the one with source elt) seem to be much the same for me. Both allow to reuse piece of markup. But I believe there should be some reason for having each. Could somebody please briefly explain it? (I guess if I read full facelets tutorial I will learn it, but I have not time to do it now, so no links to lengthy docs please :)
They are quite similar. The difference is mainly syntactical.
After observing their usage for some time it seems the convention is that fragments that you use only in a single situation are candidates for ui:include, while fragments that you re-use more often and have a more independent semantic are candidates for a custom tag.
E.g.
A single view might have a form with three sections; personal data, work history, preferences. If the page becomes unwieldy, you can divide it into smaller parts. Each of the 3 sections could be moved to their own Facelet file and will then be ui-include'ed into the original file.
On the other hand, you might have a specific way to display on image on many views in your application. Maybe you draw a line around it, have some text beneath it etc. Instead of repeating this over and over again you can abstract this to its own Facelet file again. Although you could ui:include it, most people seem to prefer to create a tag here, so you can use e.g. <my:image src="..." /> on your Facelets. This just looks nicer (more compact, more inline with other components).
In the Facelets version that's bundled with JSF 2.0, simple tags can be replaced by composite components. This is yet a third variant that on the first glance looks a lot like custom tags, but these things are technically different as they aren't merely an include but represent true components with declared attributes, ability to attach validators to, etc.