I've been trying to work with Codename One for years, but I still find errors that prevent me from releasing my apps.
Locally I can fix errors by I overshadowing erroneous classes. This works but for some reason it doesn't work when I send my apps to the build server.
If I could overshadow faulty classes would be good in many ways:
I'd better get on with my work
I could check how my corrections work on the different platforms
I could contribute to the further development of Codename One
I suffer much from not being able to publish my apps because I see no way how I can fix basic problems.
I love iPhones and do not like the Mac. Therefore I do not own a Mac and prefer to work with Linux and use the Codename One build server.
What are the reasons for not supporting overloading classes like com.codename1.ui.Component? Can You see that it would be beneficial?
This isn't the first time people asked for that but we won't deliver it. Doing this creates huge problems:
Developers don't file issues or submit fixes instead they make local fixes
Developers break things due to complex behaviors then try to get support and blame us for the issues
We have a process of submitting patches to Codename One, patches are always accepted quickly when they are valid. If something needs fixing that's what you need to do. If you need a hack then submit a patch that defines the extension point that you need. That's why we are open source...
In the past this might have been painful as you would need to wait until we updated the servers, but since changes go in every week in recent revisions this is no longer an issue. Don't think of it as "contributing", think of it as free code reviews where the entire community pulls together to improve your work...
Related
I've been trying to both convert old code and write new code using GetScopedService().
However, I keep discovering ones I didn't know about.
Is there an easy way to find the complete list of services available for 2sxc? For DNN? And maybe even RazorBlade?
If they are not documented somewhere, is there a page of code in the public repositories that I could bookmark where it would be easy to see (and compile) a list of them?
Your best place to start is https://r.2sxc.org/services (which goes to https://docs.2sxc.org/api/dot-net/ToSic.Sxc.Services.html)
This is where we keep all the current services published. Other services are to be seen as exotic / rare use.
Razor-Blade is still mostly non-service, but we plan to fix that.
We're just about to release ServiceKits as a feature, which would make things even more intuitive. For example, ServiceKit14 has all commonly used services on it, and also IScrub from Razor Blade.
I have been using both in my projects and sometimes I find the need to use a Material UI component within a bootstrap component and the UI displays as I would expect. I have been advised though not to use this approach. Is there any reason why since both are using the grid and can be flexed?
I tend to be verbose so I'll put the concise answer up top here:
Conclusion:
Whoever said it was bad to use both might just be expressing their
opinion, in reality saying it's bad to use both really lacks context
in what you're designing. #user3770494 made a very good point- but the
point, while valid and truthy about the build size, it does depend on
the scope of the application. If it's an intraoffice application with
everyone on a fiber network local it'd all be cached in memory
anyways... but (not that you know me) I would not judge you negatively
if you mixed them together-- unless it was for a MAJOR million user
application to run on mobile (an very low devices), desktop, and other
devices around the world requiring real(ish) time updates, and
streaming dynamic content with 10000s of active users at any givin
time 24/7.
In all truth- if it's not life or death-- I'd say use both- and also
do your own. The experience of understanding more then one thing is
better then just "committing to a single solution" for personal
growth.
The rest of this reading is optional - you're welcome :)
I personally have used both in production applications (both together, and independently)... I've also done it all from scratch... (CSS is my least favorite part of job things I do - luckily I have a coworker who is great at it) Here are my thoughts:
Warning: I tend to be verbose.
Disclaimer:
As someone who likes function over form, form is an afterthought that is nit picky for clients to ask about tenuous little changes. I am going to try to leave my opinion on "how each option looks for feels" out of this as much as I can.
Also I'm looking at your question in a current choice I'm making- which is using ReactJS / create-react-app to make "demo" projects for touch screen embeaded systems- so I am going to roll out half a dozen mock programs for demos nothing that really does anytihng exactly (CCscanner, barcode scanner, gps, webcam integration, fun stuff like that). So I'm researching what will be easist for me to just commit to for this "beacuse I'm bored and got a pi3b+board for fun).
Answer:
If you have the time, dedication and resources, there is really
nothing wrong with mixing them together. But you just need to think
about the time/cost/benifit of it. DIY to make the end user happy-
even if you mix them. Totally yourself is remaking the wheel- but you
can always pull in boostrap styles etc.
The inherent risks is that if you use both- make sure you don't "Mix them" to much- because then you will always have issues with trying
to ever do version changes on either one.
I like a lot of MaterialUIs things, but I honestly dislike how a few things look (style wise by default)- functionally I like it better
then bootstrap, but at the same time, I do not like MaterialUIs React
programming style (as a purist who hates CSS But knows how important
it is- having to use !important ever ever ever ... is big big big
nonononononononon) compared to whatever way my coworkers and I use
for conventions. Not saying it's better or worse then my own
preference- but a few things about it really irk me (even if they are
done for good reasons).
Bootstrap has a lot of choices to use for- I like how it looks better, I like how it plays with ReactJS better- but there is
reactstrap vs. react-bootstrap (which is why I found your post trying
to figure which one to use for this demo thing I'm doing).
Most recently (for production projects) I do try to stick just with one but normally I'm making systems that are function over form. So
they don't really care that much about the UI elements, it's about
how to use it not make it pretty. So I stick with using a single one
just to make my job easier- and usally still override styles myself
... if the original styles piss me off. But I do not stick with one
because "It's bad form to use both" I just stick with one for that
reason mentioned above. I'd actually say if bandwidth is not an
issue- it's quality to use both- but only use the parts of them that
you actually use.
(I noticed someone once importing full jQuery when the only thing that they used from it was $.ajax (all be it a lot but still) ... I was like... is that not overkill?!) -- So if you use both and want to keep things slim- just make sure on compilation you're only importing what you're using. Pythonically I'm saying- never use import * from module (however you express that in Javascript as a concept - webpack/gulp/whomever should take care of most of that for you). Assuming you're using ES6/7 style Javascript.
I encountered this scenario recently and opted to use both but for specific tasks. With it being a responsive web app Bootstrap made the most sense to use for the layout and Material UI for the widgets (just my personal preference).
You can definitely use both but you should be aware of the following:
There will be a lot of overlap in offered features unless you take time and effort to manage it by carefully picking elements from each of those libraries. And even then you will face situations where you can't avoid overlap. This basically results in a bigger bundle.
You will have to maintain theming variables for both systems to have a consistent presentation across your app. Even then, there will be situations like where your table checkboxes look different from your form checkboxes because they are from different libraries.
You have to learn and understand both of the systems. It means sometimes it'll be harder to find what's causing a certain bug. You'll also be spending more time deciding which library to use for which component.
Overall, it's more work for you to work with two different systems and a higher chance of things looking inconsistent. That said, mixing in things like a grid system with limited theming might not be too bad.
If possible, I highly encourage you to choose one system and stick with it.
Using both will increase your production js size.
Material Ui and bootstrap both provide components with basic styles like buttons so choose one.
You can use bootsrap grid for structure only or even go with flex.
I've been tasked with developing an application for internal use in our company, the end-users being the operators of the call center and their superviser.
There would be therefore be two types of users: operator & supervisor.
The operator view would be purely passive: ability to see their monthly goals (calls taken, calls answered etc) as well as those of their "cell"(group of operators+supervisor) and other "cells" and that's it.
The supervisor one however would be able active: they need to be able to set monthly goals for their subordinates as well as view them.
The application needs to live in the browser, and that browser is...sigh, either IE6 or IE7. So my question is, should I use something client-side like backbone.js, or something server-side like, say, Code Igniter?
I need to be able to develop it in a short time frame and add features as requested.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Firstly, IE6 is very old. It is still supported but support will end fairly soon (about a year, I think), so your company needs to have an upgrade plan in place. IE7 has a bit longer to run, but will also fall out of support at some point. Your company must make plans for an upgrade process. And you need to make sure that anything you write today will continue working on upgraded browser versions when they come.
Okay, that aside, today you need to support these browsers.
The first advice I would give is to use jQuery for all your Javascript needs. It is specifically targeted at being compatible with IE6 and above, and it hides a lot of the complexities with cross-browser and old-browser support from the developer, but also works well with newer browsers too.
IE6/7 do have a number of serious bugs and omissions in their Javascript support, but these can generally be worked around. Using jQuery will mean you can forget about most of them.
In the main, I would recommend against using a client-side framework like Backbone. Stick with server-driven simple HTML pages. Maybe a bit of ajax using jQuery, but nothing too much more than that. IE6 and IE7 are very very slow browsers, so the less work you make them do, the happier they'll be. Put too much Javascript on the front end and you could wind up with a system that is too slow to be usable. Also, a lot of modern JS libraries don't support IE6 at all. I'm not sure about Backbone, but even if it works now, you can't be sure that later versions will continue supporting it. (even with jQuery, some developers are starting to push for IE6 to be dropped. I don't think it'll happen just yet though)
Make sure you specify a valid <!DOCTYPE> for all your pages. Without it, IE will drop into quirks mode. This will make it very difficult to upgrade your site to a newer browser later on. There are many valid doctypes, but it doesn't really matter which one you use, as long as it's valid. Therefore, I suggest using the HTML5 doctype, simply because it's valid and it's short and simple: <!DOCTYPE html> -- that's all there is to it.
CSS is where you'll really have some pain if you're used to working with modern browsers. IE6 in particular has terrible CSS support. For IE6/7 CSS compatibility, I recommend using the Quirksmode.org compatibility charts to find out what does and does not work in those browsers.
Finally, make sure you read up on the well known IE6 bugs. There are a lot of them, and they often cause weird and wonderful rendering errors on perfectly valid code. Knowing about them in advance will help you avoid them, and help you recognise them when you (inevitably) hit them.
Hope that helps.
Oh, and good luck -- it sounds like you'll need it! ;-)
Developing websites or web applications for Internet Explorer 6 is possible as long as you do not use things such as HTML5 Javascript functions.
As for the live part, maybe you could use AJAX long polling or something similar. Example: http://techoctave.com/c7/posts/60-simple-long-polling-example-with-javascript-and-jquery
Hope this helps!
First of all, does anybody know of a developer's guide for WinBUGS? The website is full of detailed examples for Doodles and documentation for the model language, but I have yet to find anything about how to interpret trap windows.
Secondly, has anybody found any ways to streamline the check/load/compile/init/monitor/update cycle? By that I mean, there doesn't seem to be any way to say "don't bother rechecking the model or putting any of the settings back to their defaults (!!!), just keep loading data from these files, inits from those files, and for each generate a new coda". Even the standard Windows shortcuts are neutered here, forcing the user to keep clicking and filling the same fields with the same values over and over. This might seem like a minor issue, but when you are doing many similar analyses one after the other, it gets old fast.
I'm at the point where I'm about to use TRON.EXE to send fake mouseclicks to the program, but before going to that extreme I'm hoping there is some native and more elegant way to automate repetitive WinBUGS tasks.
Well... that's WinBUGS at its normal :-) Unfriendly, showing traps that would scare of an experienced kernel hacker.. :-) I don't think there exist some guide to traps. I mean if WinBUGS creators wanted to put some effort in being more user friendly, they would probably first made the traps more understandable, so that no guide was necessary.
I was trying to do something similar - i.e. to customize WinBUGS behaviour. First, you can call WinBUGS from R using R2WinBUGS. That way you are able to do a lot automatization but not all. For example, I wanted to have something like progress information in WinBUGS. The problem is that WinBUGS UI gets stuck during update cycles. R2WinBUGS creates the script.txt command script and there is command update (<big number of cycles>). What I wanted here was to customize this script.txt to contain a lot of smaller update(..) commands instead of one big one. But, the problem is that R2WinBUGS generates this script itself and you cannot change it.
So the way to customize WinBUGS could be that you create your own wrapper that creates the script.txt and other files. I believe you could do a lot more customization to WinBUGS this way.
However, I'm not sure if WinBUGS is worth it. Its development has stopped and while favorited by many people, it remains rigid. You can try JAGS or CppBugs which seem to have much more promissing future.
For a wrapper around R2WinBUGS that adds lots of functionality to streamline serious WinBUGS use, see my package rube (http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~hseltman/rube/) which is not yet on CRAN.
Among other things, it gives plain English error messages rather than passing your model/data/inits along to WinBUGS when a trap error is certain. It also gives a highly useful summary of your model/data/inits for finding problems that cannot be automatically detected. Of course, it does not catch all trap errors.
Turns out I didn't RTFM enough on the second part of my question. It turns out that the section of the WinBUGS 1.4 manual entitled "Batch-Mode: Scripts" lists all the batch commands. All the important UI functionality has a batch-mode command. There was only a little trial-and-error in getting the arguments right (for example over.relax('true')). What really took me a while to sort out is that WinBUGS seems to have trouble with some Windows paths, but as long as everything is in a subdirectory of the directory where WinBUGS is installed, it runs okay.
It's still kind of messy to have to keep loading all these little files, but I wrote an R-script that uses functions from the BRugs package to create all the files, name them in a consistent pattern, and generate a script that will then initialize the model and load them, over and over again.
I'll leave this question open for a while, though, to see if anybody has any suggestions on where I can learn to make better use of traps.
I know it has great out-of-the-box features but is it easy to customize?
Like when I query stuff from the database or change css layouts.
Is it faster to create my own modules for it or just go on and write everything from scratch using frameworks like Cake
I'm currently working on an Elgg-based site and I absolutely hate it. The project was near completion when I stepped in, but the people who created were no longer available, so I took it over as a freelancer.
As a personal impression, you are much better off writing the app from scratch in a framework. I don't know if the people before me butchered it, but the code looks awful, the entity-based relationship model is wierd to say the least and debugging is horrendous. Also, from my point of view, it doesn't scale very well. If you were to have a consistent user base, I'd be really really worried.
It keeps two global objects ($vars and $CONFIG) that have more than 5000(!) members loaded in memory on each page. This is a crap indicator.
I've worked extensively with cake. With Elgg, for about a month in a project that is on QA stage right now.
My advise is: if you need something quick with a lot of features and you only need to customize a little, go with Elgg.
If you're going to customize a lot and you can afford the development of all the forums, friends, invites, etc. features, go with Cake or any other MVC framework.
I have been working on a Elgg site for the past month or so, its code is horrible, however it's not the worst I've seen :D. it's not built for programmers like Drupal is :D. But it's not too bad. Once I got a handle on the metadata functions and read most of the code I was able to navigate it well and create custom modules and such.
What would help immensely would be some real documentation and explanation of the Elgg system. I don't think that's going to happen though :).
Out of the box there are a few problems, there are some bugs that haven't been fixed for a while and I've had to go in and fix them myself. Overall, you can make it pretty and it has some cool functions, but i wouldn't dive in until i had read the main core code to get a handle on what's happening on the backend.
Oh and massive use of storing values in globals. and a crap ton of DB calls (same with Drupal though).
i wonder if the use of storing everything, and i mean everything for your site in the globals will really hinder the server if you have a massive user load.
If you want to build a product based on a social networking platform/framework then Elgg is definately a good way to go. The code is not that bad if you actually look before leaping and doing what elgg expects. You go against its processes and structures and it will leave you beaten by the side of the road.
Developing modules/plugins or editing CSS is easy and Elgg does give you great flexability to basically build your own product ontop of it. Dolphin, as comparrison, does not allow you to do anything outside of what it expects you to do.
If you however just need a framework (not primarily for social networking etc) with some user based functionality then i suggest Cake, or if your project is HUGE then maybe Symfony or Zend. They all have plugins you can download and use/hack which would be easirer to adjust for personalised needs.
To show what you can do with elgg here is a site Mobilitate we built with Elgg 1.7. This is a very complicated website and was built ontop of Elgg.
We are starting a new project with Elgg 1.8. The new version is a major improvement they have made a lot of elements easier, incorporated better JS and CSS implementation/structure and have better commented their own code.
Elgg's database schema is horrific. They've essentially implemented a NoSQL database in SQL. It completely defeats the purpose of using a relational table structure.
If you can ignore this, and aren't doing much customization, you might be OK with Elgg. If not, STAY AWAY.
I've been working with Elgg for over a year. It is easier to customize than it would be to build something from scratch using a framework like CakePHP. I tried CakePHP and found it even more complicated than Elgg.
It is difficult to query the database due to the entity-based relationship model. You should use the build-in methods for accessing data. However, I have written many queries to double check on what is actually stored in the database.
You cannot change layouts using CSS alone. You have to deal with the various Elgg views. But CakePHP uses the same Model/View/Controller MVC concept so that would be just as difficult.