freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pradeep Murugesan <pradeepmuruge...@outlook.com>
Subject Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Date Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:04:01 GMT
I did a clean and then built.  Its working fine now.

Sent a pull request,  https://github.com/apache/incubator-freemarker/pull/9

Kindly review and let me know.

Pradeep.

________________________________________
From: Pradeep Murugesan <pradeepmurugesan@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:50 PM
To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org; Daniel Dekany
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling

Hi Daniel,

 I did the merge with the branch gae-2.3. Once I build and run the tests I am getting the following error message

Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: Clashing FreeMarker versions (2.3.24-rc01-incubating and some post-2.3.x) detected: found post-2.3.x class freemarker.core._2_4_OrLaterMarker. You probably have two different freemarker.jar-s in the classpath.


I am not sure where the jars clash. Kindly let me know what I am missing.

Pradeep.

________________________________________
From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 2:30 PM
To: Pradeep Murugesan
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling

If you believe it's complete and is well tested, then yes. For
"freemarker", it's "2.3-gae" branch. For "docgen", it's the "master"
branch. (See also:
http://freemarker.incubator.apache.org/sourcecode.html)

--
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


Friday, December 18, 2015, 3:13:50 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:

> So shall I go ahead and give a PR for the core changes.. Which
> branch I need to merge with and give PR??.
>
> Pradeep
>
>> On 18-Dec-2015, at 1:09 am, "Daniel Dekany" <ddekany@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>
>> It looks about right.
>>
>> We shouldn't require data-model for all examples, as in many cases it
>> would be empty anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>>
>> Thursday, December 17, 2015, 2:52:45 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> I have made the changes in doc-gen as per the core changes.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker-docgen/commit/46d77c6b5a3cbe01a50c7756e1efb630ca00e18a
>>>
>>> I have added a formDataModel in /manual/dgui_quickstart_template.html
>>>
>>> Kindly check and let me know if its fine.
>>>
>>> Also should we need to add a datamodel section for all the template section in the manual ?
>>>
>>> Pradeep.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 2:39 AM
>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>
>>> You can build on these new "@@" keys in Docgen of course. As of when
>>> it will be merged into a stable release, I don't know yet, maybe
>>> 2.3.24, maybe 2.3.25. In any case, Docgen, as an internal project, can
>>> use nightly versions, so it doesn't have to wait for stable releases.
>>>
>>> For efficiency, I usually try to review contributions in one go, when
>>> the pull request is merged. But I took a quick glance at the commits,
>>> and hasn't spotted any problems.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>>
>>> Sunday, December 13, 2015, 9:48:17 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>
>>>> I have added those cases for CDATA as well.
>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/620d8a35e689bd6e94fb77ceb844105d66b90ca9
>>>>
>>>> Renamed @@previous and @@next to @@previous_significant and
>>>> @@next_significant
>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/cbe7025bfe8fe713b74d1b5499d14fd7cd35c4f8
>>>>
>>>> Kindly review the same and let me know if we are good to integrate with docgen.
>>>>
>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 12:07 AM
>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>
>>>> I guess you get it right. We have to ignore text that's white-space
>>>> only, and wether it's CDATA or not we will do the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Saturday, December 12, 2015, 7:45:17 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>
>>>>> So we can ignore a CDATA text of that is mere formatting right ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it burns down to identify whether the text inside CDATA is a formatted one or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I right or did you mean the other way ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 12:44 AM
>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>
>>>>> Thursday, December 10, 2015, 9:28:31 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Done the changes
>>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/296a7a85a1f1683a3d20be0220881333cbdc4216
>>>>>> (ignore build.xml , have reverted it)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So previously we discussed to skip the following
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Empty spaces
>>>>>> 2. Comments
>>>>>> 3. PIs
>>>>>> 4. CDATA
>>>>>
>>>>> There's some kind of misunderstand here as CDATA shouldn't be there
>>>>> like that. But see later.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now 2 & 3s are not included in dom at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on how the TemplateModel was created. There are some
>>>>> convenience methods included that remove commends and PI-s from the
>>>>> DOM itself before wrapping, but some applications will just give a DOM
>>>>> to wrap.
>>>>>
>>>>>> even the ?previousSibling skips those elements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the challenge comes in skipping the CDATA. I tried to use the
>>>>>> nodeType check i.e ( if node.getNodeType == Node.CDATA_SECTION_NODE)
>>>>>> but this is not working since CDATA node is considered as text node
>>>>>> and the node type is returned as TEXT. Also the getNodeTextContent
>>>>>> is returning the text inside the CDATA  tag  (Not the string CDATA
>>>>>> itself) so I am not sure how we will be picking which is a
>>>>>> characterData and which is a non empty text.
>>>>>
>>>>> CDATA is nothing just syntax for avoiding escaping special characters.
>>>>> So of course we don't want to ignore them in general. Just think about
>>>>> it, in <a/><![CDATA[foo bar]]><b/>, it's not like "foo bar" there can
>>>>> be ignored without losing useful information (as opposed to losing
>>>>> text that's just formatting). In fact, something being inside CDATA is
>>>>> a proof that it's not just formatting, even if it's white-space. But
>>>>> as we can't (reliably) tell if a piece of text is coming from CDATA or
>>>>> not, we should ignore that difference even where you can tell it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eg:
>>>>>> <person>
>>>>>>    <profession>Software Engineer</profession>
>>>>>>    <![CDATA[ <a>test<a> ]]>
>>>>>>    <phone>12345678</phone>
>>>>>> </person>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> doing a doc.person.phone.@@previous returns the node type as text with value as <a>test<a>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure which is the criteria to check the CDATA node. Am i missing something here ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:07 AM
>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>>> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 10:11:04 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Daniel,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you got a chance to review this ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Pradeep Murugesan <pradeepmurugesan@outlook.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 10:15 AM
>>>>>>> To: Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi daniel,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a question on the @@previous and @@next being null. So we
>>>>>>> will return the previous significant node if exists but will return
>>>>>>> an empty set of nodes if its null. which means we will return a
>>>>>>> NodeListModel with an empty ArrayList.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In that case shouldn't we be wrapping the non null node too in
>>>>>>> NodeListModel instead of NodeModel ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now the code might look like this
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        if(previousSibling == null) {
>>>>>>>                return new NodeListModel(EMPTY_ARRAYLIST, null);
>>>>>>>        } else {
>>>>>>>                return wrap(previousSibling);
>>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks OK to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we need to return one dataType right ? it should be like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        if(previousSibling == null) {
>>>>>>>                return new NodeListModel(EMPTY_ARRAYLIST, null);
>>>>>>>        } else {
>>>>>>>                return NodeListModel(previousSibling);
>>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me know your inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NodeModel-s (like ElementModel) implement TemplateSequenceModel, just
>>>>>> like NodeListModel does, so as far as the template is concerned, they
>>>>>> are both list-like. The main difference is that a NodeModel can only
>>>>>> represent a node sequence of size 1, while NodeListModel can represent
>>>>>> a node sequence of arbitrary size. When your node sequence happens to
>>>>>> be of size 1, you should always use NodeModel instead of
>>>>>> NodeListModel, because only NodeModel-s implement TemplateScalarModel
>>>>>> and so can be treated as a single strings in the template.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to add though that the DOM wrapper is a part of the code that
>>>>>> I'm not familiar with, and that wasn't cleaned up by me either. So
>>>>>> watch out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pradeep
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 4:05 AM
>>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>>>> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sunday, December 6, 2015, 4:28:11 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       sorry for this huge gap.. Actually got caught up in Chennai
>>>>>>>> floods ( Chennai, India). Just back to home town and safe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have done the unit tests and the renaming of the files you
>>>>>>>> suggested previously. Please review and let me know the changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/1db672a2ba3db1f08c594df663b4dd7e68d36d4a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One random detail that I have spotted is:
>>>>>>> node.getTextContent().trim().isEmpty(). It's not very efficient if you
>>>>>>> think about it. Something like StringUtil.isTrimmableToEmpty would be
>>>>>>> better, only with String argument of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I need to cover a case for which I need your inputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lets say we are in the last sibling and trying to access the next,
>>>>>>>> same applies for previous as well what should we return ?  null ? Kindly let me know your thoughts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "?previous" and "?next" should just return null. But "@@previous" and
>>>>>>> "@@next" should behave like the other "@@" keys, that is, with XPath
>>>>>>> logic, which says that the result is an empty set of nodes. Again
>>>>>>> similarly to other "@@" keys and XPath expression, they should work
>>>>>>> correctly on node sets that contains 0 or multiple nodes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 2:34 AM
>>>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Friday, November 20, 2015, 8:51:31 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Took a long break due to some personal reasons. Sorry for the same. I have a question in your email.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Also I guess inside the testPreviousSibling you don't really need
>>>>>>>>> output capturing, nor ?trim. "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not sure what you are coming to say there. We need to assert somehow the expected o/p right ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so we can't assert against empty spaces since we don't know how
>>>>>>>>> many spaces , So I thought of asserting the same after trimming the o/p.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We don't need capturing for sure, I guess you see that now. As of
>>>>>>>> trimming, that's a minor issue really, but in fact we know how many
>>>>>>>> spaces are there, since we provide the XML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let me know if I am missing something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 2:44 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tuesday, November 3, 2015, 7:19:17 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have made the changes you have said and writing unit tests. I
>>>>>>>>>> have written an unit test and need to check whether can I proceed in
>>>>>>>>>> the same fashion. One important question I have is accessing the
>>>>>>>>>> (XML) datamodel required for the testcase.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now I am overriding the function getDataModel() and read the xml
>>>>>>>>>> from a file. Kindly let me know if that is acceptable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't need to override getDateModel(). Just add "doc" to the data
>>>>>>>>> model with the TemplateTest.addToDataModel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Loading the XML file via java.io.File API is not entirely correct,
>>>>>>>>> especially not with that relative path ("build/test-classes/..."). You
>>>>>>>>> don't know what the current directory will be on the CI server for
>>>>>>>>> example. Also, though an extreme case, but it can also occur that a
>>>>>>>>> test suite is ran from an unexploded jar (i.e., you don't even have
>>>>>>>>> real files anywhere). Just like outside tests, the correct solution is
>>>>>>>>> using Class.getResource or Class.getResourceAsStream to read
>>>>>>>>> class-loader resources.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also I guess inside the testPreviousSibling you don't really need
>>>>>>>>> output capturing, nor ?trim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/42132df19b6f8e53f66ff3f6cbbce459376c65a6
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P.S : I have removed the author name in next commit. Intellij adds
>>>>>>>>>> it and I am missing it everytime. Sorry!!.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> From: Pradeep Murugesan <pradeepmurugesan@outlook.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 7:46 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> oh now I got it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So we can also expect something like
>>>>>>>>>> <a/> there is some text here <b/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now when the user do a @@previous  on node 'b' he will get node 'a'
>>>>>>>>>> but he might expect "there is some text here" which is still a valid text node.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I thought there can be no such scenario so kept hanging on with
>>>>>>>>>> blindly skipping all till we get a node. So I will do the following .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. rename to @@previous_significant
>>>>>>>>>> 2. skip the siblings when its in any of the blacklisted candidates.
>>>>>>>>>> ( whitespaces, CDATA, \n(ofcourse))
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:12 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 6:21:19 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with that but I have a question kindly don't take it as an argument. Just curious to know
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. <a/>cdata<b/>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. <a/>       \n<b/>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. <a/>comments<b/>
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. <a/>some PI's<b/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In all the above 4 scenarios when we do a @@previous on node 'b' we expect node 'a'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With what you have implemented so far, that is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am suggesting we will keep iterating until we find a  node type ELEMENT_NODE and return it.
>>>>>>>>>>> you are suggesting to keep iterating until we find a node that is not in \n, CDATA, PIs etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think both will work. Do you think any of it which should be
>>>>>>>>>>> skipped will also have node type ELEMENT_NODE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure about what is a better logic though. Kindly let me
>>>>>>>>>>> know if I am not getting something which you are telling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Silently skipping non-whitespace text is dangerous. But if you call
>>>>>>>>>> this @@previous_element, then the user will expect it to happen, so
>>>>>>>>>> then what you have implemented can be OK.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As of my @@previous definition, the name is problematic even there, as
>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't just return the previous sibling (?previousSibling does
>>>>>>>>>> that). It does some magic, by skipping whitespace and such. So
>>>>>>>>>> certainly it should be called @@prevous_significant or
>>>>>>>>>> @@previous_non_ws, so that it's clear that some trickery is involved.
>>>>>>>>>> As of the semantic, the motivation is simply to return what many
>>>>>>>>>> naturally expect to be the previous node. Like remember your case;
>>>>>>>>>> getting some text instead of the preceding programlisting element was
>>>>>>>>>> unexpected at first, I assume. Yes, your definition of @@previous
>>>>>>>>>> fixes that too. But if you had some non-whitespace text between those
>>>>>>>>>> two programlisting elements, certainly you expect to get that text,
>>>>>>>>>> not the element before it. People don't see non-whitespace text as
>>>>>>>>>> ignorable, because in fact it hardly ever is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So after renaming both operations are OK, but I think
>>>>>>>>>> @@previous_significant is a safer operation than @@previous_element,
>>>>>>>>>> because you won't unintentionally skip non-whitespace text with it.
>>>>>>>>>> Surely @@previous_element is quite clear about what it does (that it
>>>>>>>>>> will skip text), but then, what can the users do about it? They will
>>>>>>>>>> have to hope that there won't be any non-whitespace text before the
>>>>>>>>>> target element, ever. Because when there is, they won't know about it,
>>>>>>>>>> they can't give an error or something. With @@prevous_significant,
>>>>>>>>>> when that assumption fails, they will get the text node and the
>>>>>>>>>> template that expects an element can fail or take some special action,
>>>>>>>>>> so there's no silent information loss.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 3:52:35 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By that do you mean that you intend to continue it later so that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will only skip whitespace, etc., or you think this approach is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> practical? (If it's the later, why?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----  So by @@previous the user expects the previous node. But
>>>>>>>>>>>> currently it returns the \n , spaces, as you mentioned CDATA etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To skip these we need to maintain a list of blacklisted candidates
>>>>>>>>>>>> to skip. Today we have 3 candidates (let's assume) later we may get
>>>>>>>>>>>> lot to skip which we should be adding as blacklisted.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I went for this approach assuming  there won't be any scenario
>>>>>>>>>>>> where we skip any nodes of type ELEMENT_NODE to fetch the
>>>>>>>>>>>> previousSibling node. If we will skip ELEMENT_NODE as well then no
>>>>>>>>>>>> other go we need to maintain a list of candidates to skip.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean be "maintaining". We just check the node on
>>>>>>>>>>> the fly, and decide if we proceed with its sibling or return it. What
>>>>>>>>>>> we want to skip certainly won't change over time, as the information
>>>>>>>>>>> model of XML won't change any time soon, if ever. It's WS-only text
>>>>>>>>>>> (it doesn't mater if it's plain text or a CDATA section), comments and
>>>>>>>>>>> PI-s. (We never skip elements.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kindly let me know if I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the nullPointer exception I have handled it. But Didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> commit. Its like parent directive right we will return null if its
>>>>>>>>>>>> the root node, similarly we can return null if its first and last
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessing previous and next respectively.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:45 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 6:04:19 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have fixed the code review comments here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/2e1b0d834e941eaf4ea8aafad720333c7ec1040c
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's minor issue, but BuiltInsExtForNode and BuiltInExtForNod still
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't follow the same convention as the others. The ...BI classes
>>>>>>>>>>>> should just be inside BuiltInsForNodes (no need for
>>>>>>>>>>>> BuiltInsExtForNode), and BuiltInExtForNode should be called
>>>>>>>>>>>> BuiltInForNodeEx.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the @@previous and @@next we decided to skip the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whitespaces and other character data. Instead I tried to find first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurrence of the node which is of type Node.ELEMENT_NODE
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> By that do you mean that you intend to continue it later so that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will only skip whitespace, etc., or you think this approach is more
>>>>>>>>>>>> practical? (If it's the later, why?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I believe that the current implementation will throw
>>>>>>>>>>>> NullPointerException after you have reached the first or the last
>>>>>>>>>>>> node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/2e1b0d834e941eaf4ea8aafad720333c7ec1040c#diff-a029bb56a7cedf8c6272a6d8b566f446
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried few cases and things worked fine there. Kindly let me know your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S : I am working on the Junit test cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:36 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, let's see. I have ran through the diff and have spotted these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (just in the order as I find then):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> putBI("previousSibling", new previousSiblingBI()), etc. should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> putBI("previous_sibling", "previousSibling", new previousSiblingBI()).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BuiltInExtForNode: Doesn't follow the naming pattern of the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BuiltIns... classes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TemplateNodeModelExt: Should be TemplateNodeModelEx (as we already
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have other Ex models, we are stuck with that convention...)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BuiltinVariable: You have registered two new names there, but these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't built-in variables.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In ElementModel: @@previous and @@next doesn't yet implement what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were talking about. I mean, it doesn't just skip white-space and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments and PI-s, but any text nodes. (Also an XPath-based
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation won't be very fast. org.w3c.dom.Node-s has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> getPreviousSibling()/getNextSibling() methods. Also, if you will skip
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WS text only, you won't be able to do that with XPath anyway.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (As a policy, there should not be author comments ("created by") in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the source code.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Friday, October 23, 2015, 9:09:56 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/465ed1bd768e8a5bee91bea7d3b291a5872efae5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have added the builtIns which will return blindly the previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and next sibling and also the special variables @@previous and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@next which will return the valid node. In the special variable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case I have used the xpath to get the required nodes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kindly review and let me know your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:42:04 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ddekany@freemail.hu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Returning the sibling node without skipping stuff is not XML-specific,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so certainly that should be ?previous (and a new method in the new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TemplateNodeModelEx interface), not a hash key that starts with "@".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, of course all of these has an opposite direction variant, like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "@next". And "@prev" may should be "@previous".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sunday, October 18, 2015, 5:31:50 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yeah makes sense..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so we need to return a valid element node he is looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping all the whitespace, CDATA etc...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am wondering if the user will have any reason to look for a CDATA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sibling or any non element sibling which we will skip.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case can we have 2 special cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. @prev which will return the immediate sibling2. @prevNode or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something intutive which will return a valid element skipping few .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:15:57 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ddekany@freemail.hu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saturday, October 17, 2015, 7:09:49 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hmm then I think @@prev should return the immediate sibling with the following issues/advantages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. In xml doc its a overhead for user to call it twice to get the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous element node2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It much worse than that, if it just returns the previous sibling on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DOM, as you can't know if you have to call it once, twice, 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For less document centric it is not a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For non-document XML it's similarly desirable. I meant JSON and such,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where @@prev doesn't exist anyway...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. for Non-normalized dom we wont do anything before they normalize it .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, we can do a little effort... skipping *all* the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> white-space-only character date nodes and comments and PI-s. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know If I got that correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so I will add @@prev as a special case and use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .node.@@prev.@@prev to get to theprevious sibling node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean, you will use: .node.@@prev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:09:36 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ddekany@freemail.hu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday, October 15, 2015, 10:44:10 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying we need to have it that way and leave the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility to the caller. Lets say in case of us to get to check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if template is preceded by formDataModel we will do the follwing ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <#local siblingElement = .node.@@prev.@@prev>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then check the role attribute of siblingElement ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I assume the semantic for @@prev should return the immediate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sibling being it a whitespace , CDATA or \n as in our case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that in almost all cases the user means the previous DOM node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring white-space nodes and comments, and certainly PI-s too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (That's also why ?previous or such wouldn't solve the problem you ran
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into, while it can be still very useful in some other applications,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like where the tree is not from XML but something less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document-centric.) (Non-normalized DOM-s, like one with sibling cdata
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes, could also complicate what we need, but I belive that such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases can only be addressed reasonably be ensuring that the whole DOM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is normalized before we do anything with it... so it doesn't mater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:32:33 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ddekany@freemail.hu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday, October 15, 2015, 4:13:18 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HI Daniel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its not preceeded by white spaces but "\n" is taken as sibling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> \n is whitespace, and it's a sibling in XML.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In book.xml <programlisting role="formDataModel">dsadsd fdfsdfdsf dfds</programlisting>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <programlisting role="template">&lt;#if cargo.weight &lt;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <emphasis>100</emphasis>&gt;Light cargo&lt;/#if&gt;</programlisting>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am trying to get the programlisting with role formDataModel as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previousSibling. But the "\n" is returned as the sibling. To confirm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same I just checked it with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node.previousSibling().previousSibling() and I am able to get to formDataModel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should we need to do for this here ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing... it's correct that way. it's that you want the sibling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *element*, as I said. Actually, it's a bit trickier than that. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get the sibling element, unless the interfering character data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is non-whitespace. Because, if you have <a/>cdata<b/>, then surely you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to say that <b/> is preceded bu <a/>, but "cdata".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also added a key with @@prev in ElementModel and that works fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what exactly is the semantic of @@prev?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:32:40 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ddekany@freemail.hu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what's improper in the result (I don't know what was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected). Isn't that node preceded by white space? That would explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. You might rather want the previous *element*. But that will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult to express on the TemplateNodeModel level, which is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bound to XML.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One important point is that you can't add new methods to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TemplateNodeModel, as that breaks backward compatibility. It can only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be added to a new sub-interface, like TemplateNodeModelEx. But even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that won't solve getting the sibling element node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So another approach is instead of adding a built-in, adding a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special key that's specific to freemarker.ext.dom models, like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "@@prev" and "@@next".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wednesday, October 14, 2015, 9:10:25 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to add a new built in & of course it DIDN'T work ?.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did the following.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. added putBI("previousSibling", new previousSiblingBI()); in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BuiltIn.java2. added a static class in BuiltInForNodes.java   static
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class previousSiblingBI extends BuiltInForNode {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         @Override
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         TemplateModel calculateResult(TemplateNodeModel nodeModel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Environment env) throws TemplateModelException {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>              return nodeModel.getPreviousSibling();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. added a method in Interface TemplateNodeModel.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     TemplateNodeModel getPreviousSibling() throws TemplateModelException;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. In package freemarker.ext.dom's NodeModel added the following method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public TemplateNodeModel getPreviousSibling() {     Node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previousSibling  = node.getPreviousSibling();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      return wrap(previousSibling);}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once this is done I tried to access it as .node?previousSibling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from template and it reached till the NodeModel class i defined in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 4th step. But the returned previousSibling is not proper. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not returning the programListingNode with formDataModel instead returns someother node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to log the node returned and I got the following o/p
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [docgen:transform] [#text:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [docgen:transform]           ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I clearly understand the implementation of getPreviousSibling is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not proper, but I couldn't figure out where we have implemented the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please advise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



Mime
View raw message