Wiselinks issue

Ronald_Chan · February 25, 2013, 8:19am

I tried to reach out, and I feel bitten by the response.

Am I being sensitive, or is my interpretation appropriate?

github.com/igor-alexandrov/wiselinks

Back button doesn't work properly - compare to ajax_pagination

opened 02:00AM - 24 Feb 13 UTC

closed 04:11PM - 24 Feb 13 UTC

ronalchn

Steps to replicate: - Go to http://wiselinks.herokuapp.com/ - Click "Proceed to …sample product catalog…" - Click "3" to go to page 3 of catalog - Click "About Wiselinks" - Click browser back button. After clicking back, the expected behaviour is to go to page 3 of catalog. The observed behaviour is incorrect. There are a number of edge cases associated with History.js, and I know them well. I have in fact authored my own gem for this - https://github.com/ronalchn/ajax_pagination, so when I saw this gem, I decided to test this in your demo application. There are a number of other associated problems, which I won't detail here, but some of these cases are demonstrated by a video I made with my gem http://ronalchn.github.com/ajax_pagination/, which shows the correct behaviour. In fact, I have thought very carefully about this problem to find a solution, because this was also a weakness with the pjax gem. The solution is in my javascript, in the scheme I used to track the changed sections, to restore it properly. I suppose this roundabout solution is required partly because of a weakness in the browser pushState API, causing it to return a popped state which is off by one, when what we want is actually the changes between the previous state, and the next state we need to move to. In my gem, I also implemented form submission with POST. I also have a ruby API to optionally avoid rendering unused portions of the page. If you are interested, perhaps we could work together to develop something which is correct, but also kept well-maintained. I put together almost all the code in my gem, but if we have more contributors working together on one gem, then it may make maintenance easier.

I thought it might help to collaborate on what features are useful etc,
but
I feel like all my design decisions are being rejected, and that nothing
I
have done would or could be good. The only good thing he had to say -
“It
is very good that you tried to find all cases in which History.js (or
maybe
browser history API) works not as it should work.” seems to be implying

“good try, but your solution sucks”. And then it seems he just wants me
to
spend time explaining what is wrong - but I don’t want spend time to
understand it for
himhttps://www.google.com/search?q=“I+can+explain+it+to+you+but+I+can’t+understand+it+for+you”&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enNZ396GB407&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LqgqUef7IYetigLDpIH4Bw&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667

well, more so because I feel like my competence is being questioned.

Ronald_Chan · February 25, 2013, 8:34am

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:58:13 PM UTC, Ronald Chan wrote:

say - “It is very good that you tried to find all cases in which
History.js (or maybe browser history API) works not as it should work.”
seems to be implying - “good try, but your solution sucks”. And then it
seems he just wants me to spend time explaining what is wrong - but I don’t
want spend time to understand it for
himhttps://www.google.com/search?q=“I+can+explain+it+to+you+but+I+can’t+understand+it+for+you”&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enNZ396GB407&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LqgqUef7IYetigLDpIH4Bw&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667

well, more so because I feel like my competence is being questioned.

Well I think if you want someone to make changes to their open source
project it’s up to you to explain what changes you’d like or what
doesn’t
work (or better, a pull request!) rather than just referring to a 3 page
post. I don’t think I’d read into his responses what you’ve read, but
that’s easy to do, and I can see how some of your responses could come
across the wrong way too.

And sometimes different projects have differences of opinion on
approach,
dependencies etc. That’s OK!

Fred