[annotator-dev] Status of master, my work on Annotator mainline

[Andrew Magliozzi]

Randall,

Awesome progress! I can't wait to hear more on the call Thursday.

++ Annotator as an NPM module

Also, I'd love to help restore the bookmarklet if I can.  Let's make sure
to discuss that item on the call as well.

Let a hundred Annotation applications and modules blossom.

Cheers,
Andrew




On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Randall Leeds <tilgovi at hypothes.is> wrote:

> The master branch has all green tests now.
>
> It incorporates Nick's changes that started on the `wip` branch.
> It incorporates my changes that started on the `browserify` branch.
>
> My main goal in Annotator 2.0 is to increase code sharing between projects
> using Annotator by making the core into a framework that can be more
> readily adapted to different use cases and encouraging the community to
> freely publish their own modules.
>
> In preparation for our community call this week, here's an outline of what
> I've done and why. Criticisms, praise, questions, etc all welcome.
>
> E-mail gets long and dense after this point. Grab a cup of coffee. Close
> the FaceSpace. Put on your thinking cap.
>
> Registry
> The Registry class has one simple function: coordinate discovery of
> components and application bootstrapping. In the past, an Annotator was
> created and then plugins were added to it. Some attempt has been made to
> make removing plugins possible (via a `destroy()` method), but I believe
> its safer and more robust to make explicit a separation between
> configuration and run.
>
> Core services
> Using the new registry, I've created two core services: AnnotationProvider
> and StorageProvider. The idea is that one can always find these on the
> registry under the properties 'annotation' and 'store' respectively. This
> way, one can write code which does not know which Store is being used, but
> can still access it directly.
>
> These first two changes should help eliminate the class of problem
> exemplified by such issues as "Order of annotator plugins is important when
> using Auth plugin" (https://github.com/okfn/annotator/issues/259).
>
> The purpose of these services is to clearly label the public interfaces of
> common components. With that, services can depend on and call one another
> explicitly without needing to know the name of a specific class in the
> Annotator.Plugin namespace, finding each other instead by service names
> exported to a Registry instance. Example: `registry['store']` instead of
> `plugins['Store']`.
>
> Events
> I've added the events, such as 'beforeAnnotationCreated', back into the
> Annotator class as before. I would propose we discourage use of these by
> plugins where there are better solutions. The major issue is that events
> are assumed to be synchronously processed and often modify the annotation
> data, but there are all kinds of reasons why this is bad.
>
> As an example, consider the behavior of the existing Store plugin in
> Annotator v1.2.x. It saves the annotation in response to
> 'annotationCreated'. But if the backend store is the source of truth then
> the event really shouldn't fire until after the save happens. It is better
> to explicitly invoke a the save process and defer the event until it is
> finished. That is what the AnnotationProvider does, by calling the
> StorageProvider. Now Annotator can wait until these asynchronous processes
> are finished before firing the event. One can imagine an IdentityProvider
> component which receives the request, pre-flight, from the StorageProvider
> and adds the appropriate headers. With the structure I'm imagining, it
> would be possible for the IdentityProvider to delay the create operation
> until some asynchronous authentication process has completed.
>
> With the old events still in place, old plugins should migrate with
> minimal changes, but over time we can establish what the common components
> are and what their interfaces are and promote them to services and export
> them to the registry.
>
> Browserify
> The purpose of the browserify branch was to introduce a module system to
> Annotator. There are three major reasons to do this.
>
> The first is that it makes developing the Annotator code base easier. Our
> Makefile has shrunk considerably (bookmarklet missing for the moment), our
> source maps got better, and our test cases became more assuredly
> independent.
>
> As soon as we publish Annotator as an NPM module, it will be easy for
> users of browserify or requirejs to include Annotator in their own
> projects. Likely this will make it easy for someone to add bower support,
> too. If you are not using a module system of any kind today, you may
> consider looking at one of these.
>
> The third and biggest gain from these changes comes from a combination of
> the new Registry structure with the module system. I want to encourage us
> all to publish modules independently. For example, right now someone who
> wishes to use the threading plugin developed at Hypothes.is must pull the
> source for it from our main repository. Someone wishing to use the
> LOREStore plugin would have to pull it out of the plugins directory of the
> UQ fork of Annotator. We could all contribute these to Annotator, but
> that's centralizing the maintenance burden. The true strength of Open
> Source lies in decentralizing. Let a hundred Annotation applications and
> modules blossom.
>
> I hope to see us all publishing more repositories, mixing and matching
> extensions and library code from one another, and staying up to date with
> mainline Annotator more easily.
>
> Cheers
> R
>
> _______________________________________________
> annotator-dev mailing list
> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/annotator-dev/attachments/20131216/5d539206/attachment-0004.html>