Re: [pgadmin4][patch] Initial patch to decouple from ACI Tree

Hi Joao,
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Ashesh Vashi <ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
> wrote:

>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Ashesh Vashi <
>> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Ashesh Vashi <
>>>> ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 12, 2018, 02:58 Joao De Almeida Pereira <
>>>>> jdealmeidapereira(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Ashesh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. In TreeNode, we're keepging the reference of DOMElement, do we
>>>>>>>> really need it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As of right now, our Tree abstraction acts as an adapter to the
>>>>>>>> aciTree library. The aciTree library needs the domElement for most of its
>>>>>>>> functions (setInode, unload, etc). Thus this is the easiest way to
>>>>>>>> introduce our abstraction and keep the functionality as before - at least
>>>>>>>> until we decide that whether we want to switch out the library or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand that. But - I've not seen any reference of domElement
>>>>>>> the code yet, hence - pointed that out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you look at the function: reload, unload you will see that domNode
>>>>>> is used to communicate with the ACITree
>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Are you expecting the tree class to be a singleton class
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since this tree is referenced throughout the codebase, considering
>>>>>>>> it to be a singleton seems like the most appropriate pattern for this
>>>>>>>> usecase. It is very much the same way how we create a single instance of
>>>>>>>> the aciTree library and use that throughout the codebase. Moreover, it
>>>>>>>> opens up opportunities to improve performance, for example caching lockups
>>>>>>>> of nodes. I’m not a fan of singletons myself, but I feel like we’re simply
>>>>>>>> keeping the architecture the same in the instance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah - I don't see any usage of tree object from anywhere.
>>>>>>> And, we're already creating new object in browser.js (and, not
>>>>>>> utitlizing that instance anywhere.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right, we do not need to export tree as a singleton for now.
>>>>>> The line that exports the variable tree can be remove when applying
>>>>>> the patch number 2.
>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we addressed all the concern raised about this patch. Does
>>>>>> this mean that the patch is going to get committed?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - from me for 0002.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you do that today?
>>>>
>>> Done.
>>>
>>
>> Great, thanks!
>>
>> On to patch 0003 then :-)
>>
> Yes - already working on it! :-)
>
Majority part of the 0003 patch looks good to me.
Except choice of the path of some of the file, and name of the functions.

Please find the updated patch.
I've moved files under the 'pgadmin/static/js/menu' directory under the
'pgadmin/static/js/tree', as they're using tree functionalities directly.

Please review it, and let me know your concern.

-- Thanks, Ashesh

>
> -- Thanks, Ashesh
>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Page
>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>
>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>
>