Allow multiple ghosts

Allow multiple ghosts

When under the serviceInspector flag allow multiple ghosts to be created.
This inverts the flow of control used in charm-panel such that we only 
create new pending models and the rest of the system reacts to that. Its
done this way rather than arranging for imperative rendering on click.

https://code.launchpad.net/~bcsaller/juju-gui/ghosttown/+merge/171161

(do not edit description out of merge proposal)

[bcsaller, 2013-06-24 19:48:52]

Please take a look.

[jeff.pihach, 2013-06-24 20:05:32]

LGTM - Thanks for this - that code has been in the wrong place for a long time
:) This will also make it a lot easier for me to integrate my branch. 

Only a few trivial documentation requests below.

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/app.js
File app/app.js (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/app.js#newcode583
app/app.js:583: if (window.flags && window.flags.serviceInspector) {
Throw a quick comment here to say that tests explode with this out of the flag

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/models/models.js
File app/models/models.js (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/models/models.js#newcode219
app/models/models.js:219: ghostService: function(charm) {
Excellent!!!!

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/models/models.js#newcode220
app/models/models.js:220: var config = charm && charm.get('config');
This method will fail in many other places if charm isn't provided so maybe
instead of this check a `charm instanceOf Y.Model`check

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/models/models.js#newcode703
app/models/models.js:703: destructor: function() {
Excellent!

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/views/databinding.js
File app/views/databinding.js (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/views/databinding.js#newco...
app/views/databinding.js:194: // XXX: there is a case (such as pending services)
Why is this XXX? Is there a better workaround elsewhere? If so mention of such
should probably be included here.

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/views/topology/service.js
File app/views/topology/service.js (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/views/topology/service.js#...
app/views/topology/service.js:1329: // XXX: switch on pending to handle ghost
config.
again, is this bad? re XXX

[benjamin.saller, 2013-06-24 20:25:27]

Thanks for the review, pushing the minors for the next reviewer.

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/app.js
File app/app.js (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/app.js#newcode583
app/app.js:583: if (window.flags && window.flags.serviceInspector) {
On 2013/06/24 20:05:32, jeff.pihach wrote:
> Throw a quick comment here to say that tests explode with this out of the flag

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/models/models.js
File app/models/models.js (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/models/models.js#newcode220
app/models/models.js:220: var config = charm && charm.get('config');
On 2013/06/24 20:05:32, jeff.pihach wrote:
> This method will fail in many other places if charm isn't provided so maybe
> instead of this check a `charm instanceOf Y.Model`check

Anything with a 'get' method at this point works at this point. I could remove
the 'charm &&' and let it die on the first attr access I suppose.

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/views/databinding.js
File app/views/databinding.js (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/views/databinding.js#newco...
app/views/databinding.js:194: // XXX: there is a case (such as pending services)
On 2013/06/24 20:05:32, jeff.pihach wrote:
> Why is this XXX? Is there a better workaround elsewhere? If so mention of such
> should probably be included here.

cleaned up

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/views/topology/service.js
File app/views/topology/service.js (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044/diff/1/app/views/topology/service.js#...
app/views/topology/service.js:1329: // XXX: switch on pending to handle ghost
config.
On 2013/06/24 20:05:32, jeff.pihach wrote:
> again, is this bad? re XXX

In this case it was a note on the plan for when one of us merges with the other
branch.

[bcsaller, 2013-06-24 20:28:56]

Please take a look.

[matthew.scott, 2013-06-24 21:21:09]

LGTM, thanks

[bcsaller, 2013-06-24 21:26:51]

*** Submitted:

Allow multiple ghosts

When under the serviceInspector flag allow multiple ghosts to be created.
This inverts the flow of control used in charm-panel such that we only 
create new pending models and the rest of the system reacts to that. Its
done this way rather than arranging for imperative rendering on click.

R=jeff.pihach, benjamin.saller, matthew.scott
CC=
https://codereview.appspot.com/10508044