rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erin Noe-Payne <erin.noe.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Require.js in 0.22
Date Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:24:10 GMT
With the release 0.22 tagged, I will perform the merge of require into
trunk in the next couple days.

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Erin Noe-Payne
<erin.noe.payne@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I ran through some standard regression testing. Thanks for
> updating docs, I'll try to put together the release today.
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can probably find time to test and perform the release this week.
>>>>
>>>> If we could update the docs at
>>>> http://rave.apache.org/release-process.html to reflect the he release
>>>> scripts we have available at
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/release-management/ that would
>>>> be helpful to me. I performed the last release but only sort of
>>>> remember how to do it. Ha...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will do this today
>>>
>>
>> Finally updated.  Anyone check out functionality on the trunk?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Also, I found a problem in the requirejs branch.  Apparently, the shindig
>>> javascript is being pulled from the same host as the rave instance and not
>>> the shindig host.  This means when I deploy Shindig to a different host,
>>> any OpenSocial gadget fails to render.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <
>>>> erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
>>>> >> >wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > Also, to your comments Sean - I assume you are referring to
0.22 and
>>>> >> > 0.23-SNAPSHOT?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > In general I don't like the idea of worrying about pushing
breaking
>>>> >> > changes into the trunk because of people relying on snapshot.
>>>> >> > Production systems shouldn't be depending on nightly builds,
right?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Shouldn't & are are two different things.  Do any of you who
would
>>>> like to
>>>> >> spin a release have time to validate trunk today?  If everything
checks
>>>> >> out, I am +1 for release and then merge this week.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If trunk is not releasable though, I say lets delay a month and
release
>>>> >> with require js.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > If someone can do the release I'm definitely +1 for a release prior
to
>>>> > merge. There isn't much in there that is done but there are a couple
>>>> good
>>>> > bug fixes.
>>>> >
>>>> > Chris
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <
>>>> erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >> > > Ok. Are we ready to release 0.22? I'm fine with release
first, but
>>>> I'd
>>>> >> > like
>>>> >> > > to get require into trunk relatively soon so we can take
advantage
>>>> of
>>>> >> it,
>>>> >> > > and also so that we can keep the require, angular branches
and
>>>> trunk
>>>> >> all
>>>> >> > > fairly in sync.
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > On Monday, July 1, 2013, Sean Cooper wrote:
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> +1
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> This will save anyone that is using 0.21 SNAPSHOT.
 Release 0.22
>>>> and
>>>> >> > then
>>>> >> > >> merge onto 0.22 SNAPSHOT
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> -Sean
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jasha Joachimsthal
>>>> >> > >> <jasha@apache.org>wrote:
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> > It's been 2 months since the last release. Let's
do a 0.22
>>>> release
>>>> >> > first
>>>> >> > >> > with the bug fixes and improvements. After the
release merge the
>>>> >> > require
>>>> >> > >> > branch into trunk and document how to migrate
existing
>>>> >> installations.
>>>> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> > Jasha
>>>> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> > On 1 July 2013 16:38, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> > > IMO, latter; but, I would allow 72 hrs for
lazy consensus
>>>> review.
>>>> >> > >> > >
>>>> >> > >> > > Other opinions?
>>>> >> > >> > >
>>>> >> > >> > > On Monday, July 1, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne
wrote:
>>>> >> > >> > >
>>>> >> > >> > > > Hi All,
>>>> >> > >> > > >
>>>> >> > >> > > > The require.js branch is nearing completion,
and I expect it
>>>> >> will
>>>> >> > be
>>>> >> > >> > > > ready to bring back into trunk within
the next day or two.
>>>> >> Should
>>>> >> > >> > > > the
>>>> >> > >> > > > merge be submitted as a patch through
the review board, or
>>>> >> should
>>>> >> > I
>>>> >> > >> > > > just go ahead with it when it is ready,
and provide an 0.21
>>>> ->
>>>> >> > 0.22
>>>> >> > >> > > > guide?
>>>> >> > >> > > >
>>>> >> > >> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Erin
Noe-Payne
>>>> >> > >> > > > <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > >> > > > > Hey all, just to be clear since
Dan's patch created a bit
>>>> of
>>>> >> > >> > confusion
>>>> >> > >> > > > > - I created a "require" branch
for this task. Since this
>>>> is a
>>>> >> > >> > > > > pretty
>>>> >> > >> > > > > broad change I felt we needed
a branch to collaborate and
>>>> >> > complete
>>>> >> > >> > the
>>>> >> > >> > > > > changes. I am expecting a number
of patches to be
>>>> submitted
>>>> >> > >> > > > > against
>>>> >> > >> > it
>>>> >> > >> > > > > in the next couple weeks.
>>>> >> > >> > > > >
>>>> >> > >> > > > > Let me know if there are any concerns.
>>>> >> > >> > > > >
>>>> >> > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:43 PM,
Matt Franklin <
>>>> >> > >> > > m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>
>>>> >> > >> > > > wrote:
>>>> >> > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:25
AM, Chris Geer
>>>> >> > >> > > > >> <chris@cxtsoftware.com
>>>> >> > >> > >
>>>> >> > >> > > > wrote:
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at
6:28 AM, Erin Noe-Payne <
>>>> >> > >> > > > erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> >wrote:
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>>
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > Specifically, the
idea of require js is to take all
>>>> >> > references
>>>> >> > >> > off
>>>> >> > >> > > of
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > the global namespace
and to build out and resolve a
>>>> >> > dependency
>>>> >> > >> > tree
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > for your client side
code.  So if we made it optional,
>>>> >> then
>>>> >> > >> > someone
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > who wanted to take
advantage of the feature would
>>>> need to
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > overlay
>>>> >> > >> > > any
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > place where there
is a reference to the global rave
>>>> >> object.
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > That
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > includes jsps where
there is a script block that uses
>>>> >> > rave.*,
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > and
>>>> >> > >> > > > wrap
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > that in a require
block. You would also need to
>>>> overlay
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > java
>>>> >> > >> > > > class
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > that inserts rave.registerWidget(...)
onto the page
>>>> and
>>>> >> wrap
>>>> >> > >> > those
>>>> >> > >> > > in
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > require blocks. Also
any jsp that has an
>>>> onclick="rave.*"
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > event
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > handler, those would
need to be moved to jquery
>>>> bindings
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> > >> > > wrapped
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > in require blocks.
Once you had that you would
>>>> overlay the
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > rave_script.js tag
so that instead of link all the
>>>> >> scripts,
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > you
>>>> >> > >> > > just
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > reference require.js
with a data-main attribute
>>>> pointing
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > your
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > bootstrapping script.
(See
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > http://requirejs.org/docs/start.html
>>>> >> > >> > ).
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> >
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > If instead we make
a breaking change, then we would
>>>> do all
>>>> >> > of
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > the
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > above work on trunk.
An implementer who wanted to go
>>>> to
>>>> >> 0.22
>>>> >> > >> > would
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > then be responsible
for updating their scripts to be
>>>> >> written
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > as
>>>> >> > >> > AMD
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > modules (http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#define).
>>>> The
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>> > script
>>>> >> > >> > is
>>>> >> > >> > > > >>>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

Mime
View raw message