I have multiple templates which differs with each other only by few containers. The most complex one contains superset of all containers used in all other one thus to avoid creating multiple templates I created the most complex one in following format
<ui:insert name="container1">
some layout stuff (div and all)
<ui:insert name="container1Content">
</ui:insert></ui:insert>
defining nested insert for each container and content.
Now in client template based on what is needed
I turn off container which is not needed as
<ui:define name="container1/>
else if container is needed, just define content as
<ui:define name="container1Content">doSomething</ui:define>
Please let me know if you guys see any issues with this approach, any potential problem or alternate approach for similar scenario.
thanks a lot.
Maddy
Facelets's UI Insert tag is a templating tag thus yes you're correctly using it.
In a previous project, I implemented multiple layouts using Facelets and I inserted multiple placeholders using ui-insert, which allowed the applications using those layouts to customize parts of it (e.g., modify the page title, insert custom content in the head of the documents, ...
Related
My company is using Wagtail to build robust pages for our website, likely using the StreamField component. We're wondering if Wagtail allows the possibility of us creating reusable parts (perhaps in a snippet), and injecting them into a page.
I'm including a simple diagram of what I'd like to do. Note that while snippets are one possible suggestion, it doesn't need to the specific solution.
The goal of course is to create an element which can be embedded in another page, but can be updated in a single place and cascade everywhere it's used.
Wordpress for example, has a plugin which offers this functionality in short code format:
[embed id=123456]
You can create new block for stream field, let's say MySnippetBlock and then use SnippetChooserBlock to choose the snippet you want.
MySnippetBlock(StructBlock):
title = CharBlock()
snippet = SnippetChooserBlock()
Then in your StreamBlock field you can use above custom block:
MyPage(Page):
stream_field_content = StreamField([('snippet_block', MySnippetBlock())])
...
Or you can use SnippetChooserBlock directly within StreamField if there is no need for additional info attached to it.
stream_field_content = StreamField([('snippet_block', SnippetChooserBlock())])
Summary
I'm implementing Schema.org JSON-LD structured Data into a React application that's very content heavy. I've got it all set up properly, but I'm questioning whether the way I set it up is best practice or acceptable?
The Question
I have tags minified throughout the body of my code within each element. I question this approach because it seems inefficient to have script tags all throughout the body rather than trying to consolidate them in the head tag under 1 big script tag with all the JSON-LD.
Example:
Let's say I have an eCommerce category with a lot of products on the page. Each product is contained in a <div>. Within each product div I'm providing a schema.org tag.
<div className="product-1-example">
<script type="application/ld+json">{"#context":"http://schema.org/", "#type":"Product","name":"3rd thing"}</script>
</div>
<div className="product-2-example">
<script type="application/ld+json">{"#context":"http://schema.org/", "#type":"Product","name":"3rd thing"}</script>
</div>
Here's a screenshot if the example above doesn't help of how the code is outputting:
Is this an OK approach? It just seems bizarre to me to have script tags like this all over the place? The problem I'm having as well is that because of my component structure, I can't really bundle up 1 nice tag at the top with all the consolidated structured data (i.e. grouping all the product JSON-LD data into 1). I could maybe build a script tag at the top with most of the data, and then fill out the rest with microdata?
The only way to really know is to test with the systems you want to read your markup.
There is no reason doing it that way is wrong. And I presume its done that way as its added at the point the system is processing those entities. Maybe neater to have each add their own script at the top instead of inline if possible.
I personally prefer to keep entities in their own scripts. If there is a bug in one, it will not stop the others from being parsed. You can have entities cross reference to each other by their ids.
Try not to mix with microdata. You can't cross reference ids between the two.
You probably also need to think about your entity structure. Typically you only want one main top level entity that represents what the page is about. Some other top level entities are fine as they are considered WebPage related, e.g. BreadcrumbList. But you don;t want to send mixed messages. e.g. if you mark up 10 products, which is the one the page is about? If you mark up a Product and Article. is the page an Article or about a Product?
Stuck at a trivial problem in Grails 3.1.5: Show the fields of a domain object, excluding one of them, including a transient property. Yes, this is my first Grails 3 project after many years with previous versions.
The generated show.gsp contains
<f:display bean="rfaPdffile"/>
This will include a field that may contain megabytes of XML. It should never be shown interactively. The display: false constraint is no longer in the docs, and seems to be silenty ignored.
Next I tried explicitly naming the fields:
<f:with bean="rfaPdffile">
<f:display property='fileName'/>
<f:display property='pageCount'/>
...
</f:with>
This version suprisingly displays the values without any markup whatsoever. Changing display to field,
<f:with bean="rfaPdffile">
<f:field property='fileName'/>
<f:field property='pageCount'/>
...
</f:with>
sort of works, but shows editable values. So does f:all.
In addition I tried adding other attributes to f:display: properties (like in f:table), except (like in f:all). I note in passing that those two attributes have different syntax for similar purposes.
In the Field plugin docs my use case is explicitly mentioned as a design goal. I must have missed something obvious.
My aim is to quickly throw together a prototype gui, postponing the details until later. Clues are greatly appreciated
If I understood you correctly, you want to have all bean properties included in the gsp but the one with the "megabytes of XML" should not be displayed to the user?
If that is the case you can do:
f:with bean="beanName"
f:field property="firstPropertyName"
f:field property="secondPropertyName"
And the one you don't wish to display:
g:hiddenField name="propertyName" value="${beanName.propertyName?}"
f:with
So list all the properties as f:field or f:display and put the one you don't wish to display in a g:hiddenField Grails tag
You can also try:
f:field property="propertyName"
widget-hidden="true"
but the Label is not hidden in this case.
Hope it helps
My own answer: "use the force, read the source". The f:display tag has two rather obvious bugs. I will submit a pull request as soon as I can.
Bugs aside, the documentation does not mention that the plugin may pick up the "scaffold" static property from the domain, if it has one. Its value should be a map. Its "exclude" key may define a list of property names (List of String) to be excluded. This probably works already for the "f:all" tag; bug correction is needed for the "f:display" tag.
My subjective impression is that the fields plugin is in a tight spot. It is intertwined with the Grails architecture, making it sensitive to changes in Grails internals. It is also required by the standard scaffolding plugin, making it very visible. Thus it needs constant attention from maintainers, a position not to be envied. Even now conventions for default constraints seem to have changed somewhere between Grails 3.0.9 and 3.1.7.
Performance of the fields plugin is sensitive to the total number of plugins in the app where it is used. It searches all plugins dynamically for templates.
For the wish list I would prefer stricter tag naming. The main tags should be verbs. There are two main actions, show and edit. For each action there are two main variants, single bean or multiple beans.
My answer is that at present (2 March 2017) there is no answer. I have searched the Net high and low. For the index (list) and create and edit views, the fields plugin works well enough. A certain field can be easily excluded from the create and edit views, relatively easily from the list view (by listing those that should show), and in no way I could find from the show view. This is such a common need that one would suspect it will be addressed soon. Also, easily showing derived values in the show view, like 'total' for an invoice. One can do that by adding an ordered list with a list item showing the value below the generated ordered list of values, but that is kind of a hack.
In some ways, the old way was easier. Yes, it generated long views, but they were generated and didn't have to be done by the programmer - just custom touches here and there.
I need to insert images into the copytext of a blogpost. I tried different wysiwyg-editors and different image-plugins, but so far every plugin or editor I tried directly adds an <img>-tag into the text.
My problem is, that I want to change the markup of the images when the frontend is rendered. Is there any plugin that does not add an <img>-tag, but some short code or so that gets translated into an -tag when the field is rendered, similar to wordpress?
That way I could hook into the process and change the markup of the images...
Lately I've been working on a combination of these modules to work with customized markup:
CustomFilter
BUEditor
Markdown filter
Markdown Editor for BUEditor
BUEditor and Markdown filter will give you markup-based input that you can than manipulate via RegEx with CustomFilter.
CustomFilter is kind of confusing and a bit of a pain to use, so be ready to bang your fist into your head a few times, but it's totally worth it. It' much easier than the alternative, which would be defining your own custom filter module.
What is the best way to create regions in your layout similar to Wordpress's Widgets or Drupal Blocks? What is the best practice method of doing that in CakePHP?
If by regions you mean a special "content container" (never used WP/Drupal), then it's very easy.
There are several ways to accomplish this, but the one that came to my mind first was this:
Create a helper (or an entire plugin) to handle the "which content goes into which container" logic. Shouldn't be too hard to do because you have many Cake utility classes to help you out with that (such as the Configure class). This should obviously be configurable by the end user.
Create containers in your layout, example:
<div class="content-container" id="content-container-left">
<?php echo $yourHelper->outputContent("left"); ?>
</div>
Two options:
Content should be based on elements; or
Content should be based on custom plugins (which actually do their stuff and output the content)
Note: There are probably better ways to accomplish what you want, this is just the first that came to my mind. I'd recommend some pencil-and-paper planning before you actually code anything, it will improve your chances of finding the best way for your app.
I created a Sidebar Helper recently that you might find useful.
You define the content of the boxes in Cake elements, and then add them by calling ...
$sidebar->addBox(array('element'=>'my_sidebox_element');
... this would render the content of views/elements/my_sidebox_element
Alternatively you can specify te content of a box 'inline':
$sidebar->startBox(array('title' => 'My Inline Box'));
<p>blah <b>blah</b> <span>blah</span></p>
$sidebar->endBox();
The in your layout file call
echo $sidebar->getSidebar();
... and each of your boxes will be rendered as divs
Technically speaking this doesn't need to be used as a 'SideBar' - it ultimately depends on how you render the layout with CSS.
See the documented code for more details:
SidebarHelper on GitHub