memory integration

Author: Gorash

examples/utils/jabberwocky.xml

@@ -34,3 +34,14 @@ He chortled in his joy.<br/>
 Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:<br/>
 All mimsy were the borogoves,<br/>
 And the mome raths outgrabe.<br/></i></p>
+<p>
+"Jabberwocky" has been translated into numerous languages,<sup>[31]</sup> as the novel has been <b>translated</b> into 65 languages.[32] The translation might be difficult because <i>the poem holds to English syntax and many of the principal words of the poem are invented. Translators have generally dealt with them by creating equivalent words of their own. Often these are similar in spelling or sound to Carroll's while respecting the morphology of the language they are being translated into. In Frank L. Warrin's French translation, "'Twas brillig" becomes "Il brilgue". In instances like this, both the original and the invented words echo actual words of Carroll's lexicon, but not necessarily ones with similar meanings. Translators have invented words which draw on root words with meanings similar to the English roots used by Carroll. Douglas Hofstadter noted in his essay "Translations of Jabberwocky", the word 'slithy', for example, echoes the English 'slimy', 'slither', 'slippery', 'lithe' and 'sly'. A French translation that uses 'lubricilleux' for 'slithy', evokes French words like 'lubrifier' (to lubricate) to give an impression of a meaning similar to that of Carroll's word. In his exploration of the translation challenge, Hofstadter asks "what if a word does exist, but it is very intellectual-sounding and Latinate ('lubricilleux'), rather than earthy and Anglo-Saxon ('slithy')? Perhaps<b> 'huilasse' would be better than</b> 'lubricilleux'? </i> Or does the Latin origin of the word 'lubricilleux' not make itself felt to a speaker of French in the way that it would if it were an English word ('lubricilious', perhaps)? 
+<big>"Jabberwocky" has been translated into numerous languages,<sup>[31]</sup> as the novel has been <b>translated</b> into 65 languages.[32] The translation might be difficult because <i>the poem holds to English syntax and many of the principal words of the poem are invented. Translators have generally dealt with them by creating equivalent words of their own. Often these are similar in spelling or sound to Carroll's while respecting the morphology of the language they are being translated into. In Frank L. Warrin's French translation, "'Twas brillig" becomes "Il brilgue". In instances like this, both the original and the invented words echo actual words of Carroll's lexicon, but not necessarily ones with similar meanings. Translators have invented words which draw on root words with meanings similar to the English roots used by Carroll. Douglas Hofstadter noted in his essay "Translations of Jabberwocky", the word 'slithy', for example, echoes the English 'slimy', 'slither', 'slippery', 'lithe' and 'sly'. A French translation that uses 'lubricilleux' for 'slithy', evokes French words like 'lubrifier' (to lubricate) to give an impression of a meaning similar to that of Carroll's word. In his exploration of the translation challenge, Hofstadter asks "what if a word does exist, but it is very intellectual-sounding and Latinate ('lubricilleux'), rather than earthy and Anglo-Saxon ('slithy')? Perhaps<b> 'huilasse' would be better than</b> 'lubricilleux'? </i> Or does the Latin origin of the word 'lubricilleux' not make itself felt to a speaker of French in the way that it would if it were an English word ('lubricilious', perhaps)? 
+"Jabberwocky" has been translated into numerous languages,<sup>[31]</sup> as the novel has been <b>translated</b> into 65 languages.[32] The translation might be difficult because <i>the poem holds to English syntax and many of the principal words of the poem are invented. Translators have generally dealt with them by creating equivalent words of their own. Often these are similar in spelling or sound to Carroll's while respecting the morphology of the language they are being translated into. In Frank L. Warrin's French translation, "'Twas brillig" becomes "Il brilgue". In instances like this, both the original and the invented words echo actual words of Carroll's lexicon, but not necessarily ones with similar meanings. Translators have invented words which draw on root words with meanings similar to the English roots used by Carroll. Douglas Hofstadter noted in his essay "Translations of Jabberwocky", the word 'slithy', for example, echoes the English 'slimy', 'slither', 'slippery', 'lithe' and 'sly'. A French translation that uses 'lubricilleux' for 'slithy', evokes French words like 'lubrifier' (to lubricate) to give an impression of a meaning similar to that of Carroll's word. In his exploration of the translation challenge, Hofstadter asks "what if a word does exist, but it is very intellectual-sounding and Latinate ('lubricilleux'), rather than earthy and Anglo-Saxon ('slithy')? Perhaps<b> 'huilasse' would be better than</b> 'lubricilleux'? </i> Or does the Latin origin of the word 'lubricilleux' not make itself felt to a speaker of French in the way that it would if it were an English word ('lubricilious', perhaps)? 
+<small>"Jabberwocky" has been translated into numerous languages,<sup>[31]</sup> as the novel has been <b>translated</b> into 65 languages.[32] The translation might be difficult because <i>the poem holds to English syntax and many of the principal words of the poem are invented. Translators have generally dealt with them by creating equivalent words of their own. Often these are similar in spelling or sound to Carroll's while respecting the morphology of the language they are being translated into. In Frank L. Warrin's French translation, "'Twas brillig" becomes "Il brilgue". In instances like this, both the original and the invented words echo actual words of Carroll's lexicon, but not necessarily ones with similar meanings. Translators have invented words which draw on root words with meanings similar to the English roots used by Carroll. Douglas Hofstadter noted in his essay "Translations of Jabberwocky", the word 'slithy', for example, echoes the English 'slimy', 'slither', 'slippery', 'lithe' and 'sly'. A French translation that uses 'lubricilleux' for 'slithy', evokes French words like 'lubrifier' (to lubricate) to give an impression of a meaning similar to that of Carroll's word. In his exploration of the translation challenge, Hofstadter asks "what if a word does exist, but it is very intellectual-sounding and Latinate ('lubricilleux'), rather than earthy and Anglo-Saxon ('slithy')? Perhaps<b> 'huilasse' would be better than</b> 'lubricilleux'? </i> Or does the Latin origin of the word 'lubricilleux' not make itself felt to a speaker of French in the way that it would if it were an English word ('lubricilious', perhaps)? 
+"Jabberwocky" has been translated into numerous languages,<sup>[31]</sup> as the novel has been <b>translated</b> into 65 languages.[32] The translation might be difficult because <i>the poem holds to English syntax and many of the principal words of the poem are invented. Translators have generally dealt with them by creating equivalent words of their own. Often these are similar in spelling or sound to Carroll's while respecting the morphology of the language they are being translated into. In Frank L. Warrin's French translation, "'Twas brillig" becomes "Il brilgue". In instances like this, both the original and the invented words echo actual words of Carroll's lexicon, but not necessarily ones with similar meanings. Translators have invented words which draw on root words with meanings similar to the English roots used by Carroll. Douglas Hofstadter noted in his essay "Translations of Jabberwocky", the word 'slithy', for example, echoes the English 'slimy', 'slither', 'slippery', 'lithe' and 'sly'. A French translation that uses 'lubricilleux' for 'slithy', evokes French words like 'lubrifier' (to lubricate) to give an impression of a meaning similar to that of Carroll's word. In his exploration of the translation challenge, Hofstadter asks "what if a word does exist, but it is very intellectual-sounding and Latinate ('lubricilleux'), rather than earthy and Anglo-Saxon ('slithy')? Perhaps<b> 'huilasse' would be better than</b> 'lubricilleux'? </i> Or does the Latin origin of the word 'lubricilleux' not make itself felt to a speaker of French in the way that it would if it were an English word ('lubricilious', perhaps)? 
+</small>"Jabberwocky" has been translated into numerous languages,<sup>[31]</sup> as the novel has been <b>translated</b> into 65 languages.[32] The translation might be difficult because <i>the poem holds to English syntax and many of the principal words of the poem are invented. Translators have generally dealt with them by creating equivalent words of their own. Often these are similar in spelling or sound to Carroll's while respecting the morphology of the language they are being translated into. In Frank L. Warrin's French translation, "'Twas brillig" becomes "Il brilgue". In instances like this, both the original and the invented words echo actual words of Carroll's lexicon, but not necessarily ones with similar meanings. Translators have invented words which draw on root words with meanings similar to the English roots used by Carroll. Douglas Hofstadter noted in his essay "Translations of Jabberwocky", the word 'slithy', for example, echoes the English 'slimy', 'slither', 'slippery', 'lithe' and 'sly'. A French translation that uses 'lubricilleux' for 'slithy', evokes French words like 'lubrifier' (to lubricate) to give an impression of a meaning similar to that of Carroll's word. In his exploration of the translation challenge, Hofstadter asks "what if a word does exist, but it is very intellectual-sounding and Latinate ('lubricilleux'), rather than earthy and Anglo-Saxon ('slithy')? Perhaps<b> 'huilasse' would be better than</b> 'lubricilleux'? </i> Or does the Latin origin of the word 'lubricilleux' not make itself felt to a speaker of French in the way that it would if it were an English word ('lubricilious', perhaps)? 
+"Jabberwocky" has been translated into numerous languages,<sup>[31]</sup> as the novel has been <b>translated</b> into 65 languages.[32] The translation might be difficult because <i>the poem holds to English syntax and many of the principal words of the poem are invented. Translators have generally dealt with them by creating equivalent words of their own. Often these are similar in spelling or sound to Carroll's while respecting the morphology of the language they are being translated into. In Frank L. Warrin's French translation, "'Twas brillig" becomes "Il brilgue". In instances like this, both the original and the invented words echo actual words of Carroll's lexicon, but not necessarily ones with similar meanings. Translators have invented words which draw on root words with meanings similar to the English roots used by Carroll. Douglas Hofstadter noted in his essay "Translations of Jabberwocky", the word 'slithy', for example, echoes the English 'slimy', 'slither', 'slippery', 'lithe' and 'sly'. A French translation that uses 'lubricilleux' for 'slithy', evokes French words like 'lubrifier' (to lubricate) to give an impression of a meaning similar to that of Carroll's word. In his exploration of the translation challenge, Hofstadter asks "what if a word does exist, but it is very intellectual-sounding and Latinate ('lubricilleux'), rather than earthy and Anglo-Saxon ('slithy')? Perhaps<b> 'huilasse' would be better than</b> 'lubricilleux'? </i> Or does the Latin origin of the word 'lubricilleux' not make itself felt to a speaker of French in the way that it would if it were an English word ('lubricilious', perhaps)? 
+</big>"Jabberwocky" has been translated into numerous languages,<sup>[31]</sup> as the novel has been <b>translated</b> into 65 languages.[32] The translation might be difficult because <i>the poem holds to English syntax and many of the principal words of the poem are invented. Translators have generally dealt with them by creating equivalent words of their own. Often these are similar in spelling or sound to Carroll's while respecting the morphology of the language they are being translated into. In Frank L. Warrin's French translation, "'Twas brillig" becomes "Il brilgue". In instances like this, both the original and the invented words echo actual words of Carroll's lexicon, but not necessarily ones with similar meanings. Translators have invented words which draw on root words with meanings similar to the English roots used by Carroll. Douglas Hofstadter noted in his essay "Translations of Jabberwocky", the word 'slithy', for example, echoes the English 'slimy', 'slither', 'slippery', 'lithe' and 'sly'. A French translation that uses 'lubricilleux' for 'slithy', evokes French words like 'lubrifier' (to lubricate) to give an impression of a meaning similar to that of Carroll's word. In his exploration of the translation challenge, Hofstadter asks "what if a word does exist, but it is very intellectual-sounding and Latinate ('lubricilleux'), rather than earthy and Anglo-Saxon ('slithy')? Perhaps<b> 'huilasse' would be better than</b> 'lubricilleux'? </i> Or does the Latin origin of the word 'lubricilleux' not make itself felt to a speaker of French in the way that it would if it were an English word ('lubricilious', perhaps)? 
+"Jabberwocky" has been translated into numerous languages,<sup>[31]</sup> as the novel has been <b>translated</b> into 65 languages.[32] The translation might be difficult because <i>the poem holds to English syntax and many of the principal words of the poem are invented. Translators have generally dealt with them by creating equivalent words of their own. Often these are similar in spelling or sound to Carroll's while respecting the morphology of the language they are being translated into. In Frank L. Warrin's French translation, "'Twas brillig" becomes "Il brilgue". In instances like this, both the original and the invented words echo actual words of Carroll's lexicon, but not necessarily ones with similar meanings. Translators have invented words which draw on root words with meanings similar to the English roots used by Carroll. Douglas Hofstadter noted in his essay "Translations of Jabberwocky", the word 'slithy', for example, echoes the English 'slimy', 'slither', 'slippery', 'lithe' and 'sly'. A French translation that uses 'lubricilleux' for 'slithy', evokes French words like 'lubrifier' (to lubricate) to give an impression of a meaning similar to that of Carroll's word. In his exploration of the translation challenge, Hofstadter asks "what if a word does exist, but it is very intellectual-sounding and Latinate ('lubricilleux'), rather than earthy and Anglo-Saxon ('slithy')? Perhaps<b> 'huilasse' would be better than</b> 'lubricilleux'? </i> Or does the Latin origin of the word 'lubricilleux' not make itself felt to a speaker of French in the way that it would if it were an English word ('lubricilious', perhaps)? 
+</p>

packages/bundle-odoo-website-editor/OdooWebsiteEditor.ts

@@ -65,7 +65,10 @@ export class OdooWebsiteEditor extends JWEditor {
     constructor(options: OdooWebsiteEditorOption) {
         super();
         class CustomPlugin extends JWPlugin {
-            commands = options.customCommands;
+            commands = Object.assign(
+                { commit: { handler: options.afterRender } },
+                options.customCommands,
+            );
         }
 
         this.configure({
@@ -199,7 +202,6 @@ export class OdooWebsiteEditor extends JWEditor {
                 ['editable', ['main']],
             ],
             location: options.location,
-            afterRender: options.afterRender,
         });
         this.configure(DomEditable, {
             autoFocus: true,
@@ -223,7 +225,7 @@ export class OdooWebsiteEditor extends JWEditor {
     }
 
     async render(): Promise<void> {
-        const domLayout = this.plugins.get(DomLayout);
-        return domLayout.redraw();
+        // const domLayout = this.plugins.get(DomLayout);
+        // return domLayout._redrawAfterCommand();
     }
 }

packages/core/src/Core.ts

@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ export class Core<T extends JWPluginConfig = JWPluginConfig> extends JWPlugin<T>
                 previousSibling.removeBackward();
             } else if (range.startContainer.breakable && range.startContainer.editable) {
                 // Otherwise set range start at previous valid leaf.
-                let ancestor = range.start.parent;
+                let ancestor: VNode = range.start.parent;
                 while (ancestor?.breakable && ancestor.editable && !ancestor.previousSibling()) {
                     ancestor = ancestor.parent;
                 }
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ export class Core<T extends JWPluginConfig = JWPluginConfig> extends JWPlugin<T>
                 nextSibling.removeForward();
             } else if (range.endContainer.breakable && range.endContainer.editable) {
                 // Otherwise set range end at next valid leaf.
-                let ancestor = range.end.parent;
+                let ancestor: VNode = range.end.parent;
                 while (ancestor?.breakable && ancestor.editable && !ancestor.nextSibling()) {
                     ancestor = ancestor.parent;
                 }

packages/core/src/Dispatcher.ts

@@ -105,4 +105,13 @@ export class Dispatcher {
             await hookCallback(args, signal);
         }
     }
+
+    /**
+     * Dispatch the commit signal.
+     */
+    async commit(): Promise<void> {
+        for (const hookCallback of this.commandHooks.commit) {
+            await hookCallback({}, 'commit');
+        }
+    }
 }