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

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.

-- Thanks, Ashesh

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