| <!doctype html> |
|
|
| <title>CodeMirror: Internals</title> |
| <meta charset="utf-8"/> |
| <link rel=stylesheet href="docs.css"> |
| <style>dl dl {margin: 0;} .update {color: #d40 !important}</style> |
| <script src="activebookmark.js"></script> |
|
|
| <div id=nav> |
| <a href="https://codemirror.net"><h1>CodeMirror</h1><img id=logo src="logo.png"></a> |
|
|
| <ul> |
| <li><a href="../index.html">Home</a> |
| <li><a href="manual.html">Manual</a> |
| <li><a href="https://github.com/codemirror/codemirror">Code</a> |
| </ul> |
| <ul> |
| <li><a href="#top">Introduction</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#approach">General Approach</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#input">Input</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#selection">Selection</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#update">Intelligent Updating</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#parse">Parsing</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#summary">What Gives?</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#btree">Content Representation</a></li> |
| <li><a href="#keymap">Key Maps</a></li> |
| </ul> |
| </div> |
|
|
| <article> |
|
|
| <h2 id=top>(Re-) Implementing A Syntax-Highlighting Editor in JavaScript</h2> |
|
|
| <p style="font-size: 85%" id="intro"> |
| <strong>Topic:</strong> JavaScript, code editor implementation<br> |
| <strong>Author:</strong> Marijn Haverbeke<br> |
| <strong>Date:</strong> March 2nd 2011 (updated November 13th 2011) |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p style="padding: 0 3em 0 2em"><strong>Caution</strong>: this text was written briefly after |
| version 2 was initially written. It no longer (even including the |
| update at the bottom) fully represents the current implementation. I'm |
| leaving it here as a historic document. For more up-to-date |
| information, look at the entries |
| tagged <a href="http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/blog/#cm-internals">cm-internals</a> |
| on my blog.</p> |
|
|
| <p>This is a followup to |
| my <a href="https://codemirror.net/story.html">Brutal Odyssey to the |
| Dark Side of the DOM Tree</a> story. That one describes the |
| mind-bending process of implementing (what would become) CodeMirror 1. |
| This one describes the internals of CodeMirror 2, a complete rewrite |
| and rethink of the old code base. I wanted to give this piece another |
| Hunter Thompson copycat subtitle, but somehow that would be out of |
| place—the process this time around was one of straightforward |
| engineering, requiring no serious mind-bending whatsoever.</p> |
|
|
| <p>So, what is wrong with CodeMirror 1? I'd estimate, by mailing list |
| activity and general search-engine presence, that it has been |
| integrated into about a thousand systems by now. The most prominent |
| one, since a few weeks, |
| being <a href="http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2011/01/make-quick-fixes-quicker-on-google.html">Google |
| code's project hosting</a>. It works, and it's being used widely.</p> |
|
|
| <p>Still, I did not start replacing it because I was bored. CodeMirror |
| 1 was heavily reliant on <code>designMode</code> |
| or <code>contentEditable</code> (depending on the browser). Neither of |
| these are well specified (HTML5 tries |
| to <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/editing.html#contenteditable">specify</a> |
| their basics), and, more importantly, they tend to be one of the more |
| obscure and buggy areas of browser functionality—CodeMirror, by using |
| this functionality in a non-typical way, was constantly running up |
| against browser bugs. WebKit wouldn't show an empty line at the end of |
| the document, and in some releases would suddenly get unbearably slow. |
| Firefox would show the cursor in the wrong place. Internet Explorer |
| would insist on linkifying everything that looked like a URL or email |
| address, a behaviour that can't be turned off. Some bugs I managed to |
| work around (which was often a frustrating, painful process), others, |
| such as the Firefox cursor placement, I gave up on, and had to tell |
| user after user that they were known problems, but not something I |
| could help.</p> |
|
|
| <p>Also, there is the fact that <code>designMode</code> (which seemed |
| to be less buggy than <code>contentEditable</code> in Webkit and |
| Firefox, and was thus used by CodeMirror 1 in those browsers) requires |
| a frame. Frames are another tricky area. It takes some effort to |
| prevent getting tripped up by domain restrictions, they don't |
| initialize synchronously, behave strangely in response to the back |
| button, and, on several browsers, can't be moved around the DOM |
| without having them re-initialize. They did provide a very nice way to |
| namespace the library, though—CodeMirror 1 could freely pollute the |
| namespace inside the frame.</p> |
|
|
| <p>Finally, working with an editable document means working with |
| selection in arbitrary DOM structures. Internet Explorer (8 and |
| before) has an utterly different (and awkward) selection API than all |
| of the other browsers, and even among the different implementations of |
| <code>document.selection</code>, details about how exactly a selection |
| is represented vary quite a bit. Add to that the fact that Opera's |
| selection support tended to be very buggy until recently, and you can |
| imagine why CodeMirror 1 contains 700 lines of selection-handling |
| code.</p> |
|
|
| <p>And that brings us to the main issue with the CodeMirror 1 |
| code base: The proportion of browser-bug-workarounds to real |
| application code was getting dangerously high. By building on top of a |
| few dodgy features, I put the system in a vulnerable position—any |
| incompatibility and bugginess in these features, I had to paper over |
| with my own code. Not only did I have to do some serious stunt-work to |
| get it to work on older browsers (as detailed in the |
| previous <a href="https://codemirror.net/story.html">story</a>), things |
| also kept breaking in newly released versions, requiring me to come up |
| with <em>new</em> scary hacks in order to keep up. This was starting |
| to lose its appeal.</p> |
|
|
| <section id=approach> |
| <h2>General Approach</h2> |
|
|
| <p>What CodeMirror 2 does is try to sidestep most of the hairy hacks |
| that came up in version 1. I owe a lot to the |
| <a href="http://ace.ajax.org">ACE</a> editor for inspiration on how to |
| approach this.</p> |
|
|
| <p>I absolutely did not want to be completely reliant on key events to |
| generate my input. Every JavaScript programmer knows that key event |
| information is horrible and incomplete. Some people (most awesomely |
| Mihai Bazon with <a href="http://ymacs.org">Ymacs</a>) have been able |
| to build more or less functioning editors by directly reading key |
| events, but it takes a lot of work (the kind of never-ending, fragile |
| work I described earlier), and will never be able to properly support |
| things like multi-keystoke international character |
| input. <a href="#keymap" class="update">[see below for caveat]</a></p> |
|
|
| <p>So what I do is focus a hidden textarea, and let the browser |
| believe that the user is typing into that. What we show to the user is |
| a DOM structure we built to represent his document. If this is updated |
| quickly enough, and shows some kind of believable cursor, it feels |
| like a real text-input control.</p> |
|
|
| <p>Another big win is that this DOM representation does not have to |
| span the whole document. Some CodeMirror 1 users insisted that they |
| needed to put a 30 thousand line XML document into CodeMirror. Putting |
| all that into the DOM takes a while, especially since, for some |
| reason, an editable DOM tree is slower than a normal one on most |
| browsers. If we have full control over what we show, we must only |
| ensure that the visible part of the document has been added, and can |
| do the rest only when needed. (Fortunately, the <code>onscroll</code> |
| event works almost the same on all browsers, and lends itself well to |
| displaying things only as they are scrolled into view.)</p> |
| </section> |
| <section id="input"> |
| <h2>Input</h2> |
|
|
| <p>ACE uses its hidden textarea only as a text input shim, and does |
| all cursor movement and things like text deletion itself by directly |
| handling key events. CodeMirror's way is to let the browser do its |
| thing as much as possible, and not, for example, define its own set of |
| key bindings. One way to do this would have been to have the whole |
| document inside the hidden textarea, and after each key event update |
| the display DOM to reflect what's in that textarea.</p> |
|
|
| <p>That'd be simple, but it is not realistic. For even medium-sized |
| document the editor would be constantly munging huge strings, and get |
| terribly slow. What CodeMirror 2 does is put the current selection, |
| along with an extra line on the top and on the bottom, into the |
| textarea.</p> |
|
|
| <p>This means that the arrow keys (and their ctrl-variations), home, |
| end, etcetera, do not have to be handled specially. We just read the |
| cursor position in the textarea, and update our cursor to match it. |
| Also, copy and paste work pretty much for free, and people get their |
| native key bindings, without any special work on my part. For example, |
| I have emacs key bindings configured for Chrome and Firefox. There is |
| no way for a script to detect this. <a class="update" |
| href="#keymap">[no longer the case]</a></p> |
|
|
| <p>Of course, since only a small part of the document sits in the |
| textarea, keys like page up and ctrl-end won't do the right thing. |
| CodeMirror is catching those events and handling them itself.</p> |
| </section> |
| <section id="selection"> |
| <h2>Selection</h2> |
|
|
| <p>Getting and setting the selection range of a textarea in modern |
| browsers is trivial—you just use the <code>selectionStart</code> |
| and <code>selectionEnd</code> properties. On IE you have to do some |
| insane stuff with temporary ranges and compensating for the fact that |
| moving the selection by a 'character' will treat \r\n as a single |
| character, but even there it is possible to build functions that |
| reliably set and get the selection range.</p> |
|
|
| <p>But consider this typical case: When I'm somewhere in my document, |
| press shift, and press the up arrow, something gets selected. Then, if |
| I, still holding shift, press the up arrow again, the top of my |
| selection is adjusted. The selection remembers where its <em>head</em> |
| and its <em>anchor</em> are, and moves the head when we shift-move. |
| This is a generally accepted property of selections, and done right by |
| every editing component built in the past twenty years.</p> |
|
|
| <p>But not something that the browser selection APIs expose.</p> |
|
|
| <p>Great. So when someone creates an 'upside-down' selection, the next |
| time CodeMirror has to update the textarea, it'll re-create the |
| selection as an 'upside-up' selection, with the anchor at the top, and |
| the next cursor motion will behave in an unexpected way—our second |
| up-arrow press in the example above will not do anything, since it is |
| interpreted in exactly the same way as the first.</p> |
|
|
| <p>No problem. We'll just, ehm, detect that the selection is |
| upside-down (you can tell by the way it was created), and then, when |
| an upside-down selection is present, and a cursor-moving key is |
| pressed in combination with shift, we quickly collapse the selection |
| in the textarea to its start, allow the key to take effect, and then |
| combine its new head with its old anchor to get the <em>real</em> |
| selection.</p> |
|
|
| <p>In short, scary hacks could not be avoided entirely in CodeMirror |
| 2.</p> |
|
|
| <p>And, the observant reader might ask, how do you even know that a |
| key combo is a cursor-moving combo, if you claim you support any |
| native key bindings? Well, we don't, but we can learn. The editor |
| keeps a set known cursor-movement combos (initialized to the |
| predictable defaults), and updates this set when it observes that |
| pressing a certain key had (only) the effect of moving the cursor. |
| This, of course, doesn't work if the first time the key is used was |
| for extending an inverted selection, but it works most of the |
| time.</p> |
| </section> |
| <section id="update"> |
| <h2>Intelligent Updating</h2> |
|
|
| <p>One thing that always comes up when you have a complicated internal |
| state that's reflected in some user-visible external representation |
| (in this case, the displayed code and the textarea's content) is |
| keeping the two in sync. The naive way is to just update the display |
| every time you change your state, but this is not only error prone |
| (you'll forget), it also easily leads to duplicate work on big, |
| composite operations. Then you start passing around flags indicating |
| whether the display should be updated in an attempt to be efficient |
| again and, well, at that point you might as well give up completely.</p> |
|
|
| <p>I did go down that road, but then switched to a much simpler model: |
| simply keep track of all the things that have been changed during an |
| action, and then, only at the end, use this information to update the |
| user-visible display.</p> |
|
|
| <p>CodeMirror uses a concept of <em>operations</em>, which start by |
| calling a specific set-up function that clears the state and end by |
| calling another function that reads this state and does the required |
| updating. Most event handlers, and all the user-visible methods that |
| change state are wrapped like this. There's a method |
| called <code>operation</code> that accepts a function, and returns |
| another function that wraps the given function as an operation.</p> |
|
|
| <p>It's trivial to extend this (as CodeMirror does) to detect nesting, |
| and, when an operation is started inside an operation, simply |
| increment the nesting count, and only do the updating when this count |
| reaches zero again.</p> |
|
|
| <p>If we have a set of changed ranges and know the currently shown |
| range, we can (with some awkward code to deal with the fact that |
| changes can add and remove lines, so we're dealing with a changing |
| coordinate system) construct a map of the ranges that were left |
| intact. We can then compare this map with the part of the document |
| that's currently visible (based on scroll offset and editor height) to |
| determine whether something needs to be updated.</p> |
|
|
| <p>CodeMirror uses two update algorithms—a full refresh, where it just |
| discards the whole part of the DOM that contains the edited text and |
| rebuilds it, and a patch algorithm, where it uses the information |
| about changed and intact ranges to update only the out-of-date parts |
| of the DOM. When more than 30 percent (which is the current heuristic, |
| might change) of the lines need to be updated, the full refresh is |
| chosen (since it's faster to do than painstakingly finding and |
| updating all the changed lines), in the other case it does the |
| patching (so that, if you scroll a line or select another character, |
| the whole screen doesn't have to be |
| re-rendered). <span class="update">[the full-refresh |
| algorithm was dropped, it wasn't really faster than the patching |
| one]</span></p> |
|
|
| <p>All updating uses <code>innerHTML</code> rather than direct DOM |
| manipulation, since that still seems to be by far the fastest way to |
| build documents. There's a per-line function that combines the |
| highlighting, <a href="manual.html#markText">marking</a>, and |
| selection info for that line into a snippet of HTML. The patch updater |
| uses this to reset individual lines, the refresh updater builds an |
| HTML chunk for the whole visible document at once, and then uses a |
| single <code>innerHTML</code> update to do the refresh.</p> |
| </section> |
| <section id="parse"> |
| <h2>Parsers can be Simple</h2> |
|
|
| <p>When I wrote CodeMirror 1, I |
| thought <a href="https://codemirror.net/story.html#parser">interruptible |
| parsers</a> were a hugely scary and complicated thing, and I used a |
| bunch of heavyweight abstractions to keep this supposed complexity |
| under control: parsers |
| were <a href="http://bob.pythonmac.org/archives/2005/07/06/iteration-in-javascript/">iterators</a> |
| that consumed input from another iterator, and used funny |
| closure-resetting tricks to copy and resume themselves.</p> |
|
|
| <p>This made for a rather nice system, in that parsers formed strictly |
| separate modules, and could be composed in predictable ways. |
| Unfortunately, it was quite slow (stacking three or four iterators on |
| top of each other), and extremely intimidating to people not used to a |
| functional programming style.</p> |
|
|
| <p>With a few small changes, however, we can keep all those |
| advantages, but simplify the API and make the whole thing less |
| indirect and inefficient. CodeMirror |
| 2's <a href="manual.html#modeapi">mode API</a> uses explicit state |
| objects, and makes the parser/tokenizer a function that simply takes a |
| state and a character stream abstraction, advances the stream one |
| token, and returns the way the token should be styled. This state may |
| be copied, optionally in a mode-defined way, in order to be able to |
| continue a parse at a given point. Even someone who's never touched a |
| lambda in his life can understand this approach. Additionally, far |
| fewer objects are allocated in the course of parsing now.</p> |
|
|
| <p>The biggest speedup comes from the fact that the parsing no longer |
| has to touch the DOM though. In CodeMirror 1, on an older browser, you |
| could <em>see</em> the parser work its way through the document, |
| managing some twenty lines in each 50-millisecond time slice it got. It |
| was reading its input from the DOM, and updating the DOM as it went |
| along, which any experienced JavaScript programmer will immediately |
| spot as a recipe for slowness. In CodeMirror 2, the parser usually |
| finishes the whole document in a single 100-millisecond time slice—it |
| manages some 1500 lines during that time on Chrome. All it has to do |
| is munge strings, so there is no real reason for it to be slow |
| anymore.</p> |
| </section> |
| <section id="summary"> |
| <h2>What Gives?</h2> |
|
|
| <p>Given all this, what can you expect from CodeMirror 2?</p> |
|
|
| <ul> |
|
|
| <li><strong>Small.</strong> the base library is |
| some <span class="update">45k</span> when minified |
| now, <span class="update">17k</span> when gzipped. It's smaller than |
| its own logo.</li> |
|
|
| <li><strong>Lightweight.</strong> CodeMirror 2 initializes very |
| quickly, and does almost no work when it is not focused. This means |
| you can treat it almost like a textarea, have multiple instances on a |
| page without trouble.</li> |
|
|
| <li><strong>Huge document support.</strong> Since highlighting is |
| really fast, and no DOM structure is being built for non-visible |
| content, you don't have to worry about locking up your browser when a |
| user enters a megabyte-sized document.</li> |
|
|
| <li><strong>Extended API.</strong> Some things kept coming up in the |
| mailing list, such as marking pieces of text or lines, which were |
| extremely hard to do with CodeMirror 1. The new version has proper |
| support for these built in.</li> |
|
|
| <li><strong>Tab support.</strong> Tabs inside editable documents were, |
| for some reason, a no-go. At least six different people announced they |
| were going to add tab support to CodeMirror 1, none survived (I mean, |
| none delivered a working version). CodeMirror 2 no longer removes tabs |
| from your document.</li> |
|
|
| <li><strong>Sane styling.</strong> <code>iframe</code> nodes aren't |
| really known for respecting document flow. Now that an editor instance |
| is a plain <code>div</code> element, it is much easier to size it to |
| fit the surrounding elements. You don't even have to make it scroll if |
| you do not <a href="../demo/resize.html">want to</a>.</li> |
|
|
| </ul> |
|
|
| <p>On the downside, a CodeMirror 2 instance is <em>not</em> a native |
| editable component. Though it does its best to emulate such a |
| component as much as possible, there is functionality that browsers |
| just do not allow us to hook into. Doing select-all from the context |
| menu, for example, is not currently detected by CodeMirror.</p> |
|
|
| <p id="changes" style="margin-top: 2em;"><span style="font-weight: |
| bold">[Updates from November 13th 2011]</span> Recently, I've made |
| some changes to the codebase that cause some of the text above to no |
| longer be current. I've left the text intact, but added markers at the |
| passages that are now inaccurate. The new situation is described |
| below.</p> |
| </section> |
| <section id="btree"> |
| <h2>Content Representation</h2> |
|
|
| <p>The original implementation of CodeMirror 2 represented the |
| document as a flat array of line objects. This worked well—splicing |
| arrays will require the part of the array after the splice to be |
| moved, but this is basically just a simple <code>memmove</code> of a |
| bunch of pointers, so it is cheap even for huge documents.</p> |
|
|
| <p>However, I recently added line wrapping and code folding (line |
| collapsing, basically). Once lines start taking up a non-constant |
| amount of vertical space, looking up a line by vertical position |
| (which is needed when someone clicks the document, and to determine |
| the visible part of the document during scrolling) can only be done |
| with a linear scan through the whole array, summing up line heights as |
| you go. Seeing how I've been going out of my way to make big documents |
| fast, this is not acceptable.</p> |
|
|
| <p>The new representation is based on a B-tree. The leaves of the tree |
| contain arrays of line objects, with a fixed minimum and maximum size, |
| and the non-leaf nodes simply hold arrays of child nodes. Each node |
| stores both the amount of lines that live below them and the vertical |
| space taken up by these lines. This allows the tree to be indexed both |
| by line number and by vertical position, and all access has |
| logarithmic complexity in relation to the document size.</p> |
|
|
| <p>I gave line objects and tree nodes parent pointers, to the node |
| above them. When a line has to update its height, it can simply walk |
| these pointers to the top of the tree, adding or subtracting the |
| difference in height from each node it encounters. The parent pointers |
| also make it cheaper (in complexity terms, the difference is probably |
| tiny in normal-sized documents) to find the current line number when |
| given a line object. In the old approach, the whole document array had |
| to be searched. Now, we can just walk up the tree and count the sizes |
| of the nodes coming before us at each level.</p> |
|
|
| <p>I chose B-trees, not regular binary trees, mostly because they |
| allow for very fast bulk insertions and deletions. When there is a big |
| change to a document, it typically involves adding, deleting, or |
| replacing a chunk of subsequent lines. In a regular balanced tree, all |
| these inserts or deletes would have to be done separately, which could |
| be really expensive. In a B-tree, to insert a chunk, you just walk |
| down the tree once to find where it should go, insert them all in one |
| shot, and then break up the node if needed. This breaking up might |
| involve breaking up nodes further up, but only requires a single pass |
| back up the tree. For deletion, I'm somewhat lax in keeping things |
| balanced—I just collapse nodes into a leaf when their child count goes |
| below a given number. This means that there are some weird editing |
| patterns that may result in a seriously unbalanced tree, but even such |
| an unbalanced tree will perform well, unless you spend a day making |
| strangely repeating edits to a really big document.</p> |
| </section> |
| <section id="keymap"> |
| <h2>Keymaps</h2> |
|
|
| <p><a href="#approach">Above</a>, I claimed that directly catching key |
| events for things like cursor movement is impractical because it |
| requires some browser-specific kludges. I then proceeded to explain |
| some awful <a href="#selection">hacks</a> that were needed to make it |
| possible for the selection changes to be detected through the |
| textarea. In fact, the second hack is about as bad as the first.</p> |
|
|
| <p>On top of that, in the presence of user-configurable tab sizes and |
| collapsed and wrapped lines, lining up cursor movement in the textarea |
| with what's visible on the screen becomes a nightmare. Thus, I've |
| decided to move to a model where the textarea's selection is no longer |
| depended on.</p> |
|
|
| <p>So I moved to a model where all cursor movement is handled by my |
| own code. This adds support for a goal column, proper interaction of |
| cursor movement with collapsed lines, and makes it possible for |
| vertical movement to move through wrapped lines properly, instead of |
| just treating them like non-wrapped lines.</p> |
|
|
| <p>The key event handlers now translate the key event into a string, |
| something like <code>Ctrl-Home</code> or <code>Shift-Cmd-R</code>, and |
| use that string to look up an action to perform. To make keybinding |
| customizable, this lookup goes through |
| a <a href="manual.html#option_keyMap">table</a>, using a scheme that |
| allows such tables to be chained together (for example, the default |
| Mac bindings fall through to a table named 'emacsy', which defines |
| basic Emacs-style bindings like <code>Ctrl-F</code>, and which is also |
| used by the custom Emacs bindings).</p> |
|
|
| <p>A new |
| option <a href="manual.html#option_extraKeys"><code>extraKeys</code></a> |
| allows ad-hoc keybindings to be defined in a much nicer way than what |
| was possible with the |
| old <a href="manual.html#option_onKeyEvent"><code>onKeyEvent</code></a> |
| callback. You simply provide an object mapping key identifiers to |
| functions, instead of painstakingly looking at raw key events.</p> |
|
|
| <p>Built-in commands map to strings, rather than functions, for |
| example <code>"goLineUp"</code> is the default action bound to the up |
| arrow key. This allows new keymaps to refer to them without |
| duplicating any code. New commands can be defined by assigning to |
| the <code>CodeMirror.commands</code> object, which maps such commands |
| to functions.</p> |
|
|
| <p>The hidden textarea now only holds the current selection, with no |
| extra characters around it. This has a nice advantage: polling for |
| input becomes much, much faster. If there's a big selection, this text |
| does not have to be read from the textarea every time—when we poll, |
| just noticing that something is still selected is enough to tell us |
| that no new text was typed.</p> |
|
|
| <p>The reason that cheap polling is important is that many browsers do |
| not fire useful events on IME (input method engine) input, which is |
| the thing where people inputting a language like Japanese or Chinese |
| use multiple keystrokes to create a character or sequence of |
| characters. Most modern browsers fire <code>input</code> when the |
| composing is finished, but many don't fire anything when the character |
| is updated <em>during</em> composition. So we poll, whenever the |
| editor is focused, to provide immediate updates of the display.</p> |
|
|
| </section> |
| </article> |
|
|
