rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jasha Joachimsthal <ja...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Require.js in 0.22
Date Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:03:42 GMT
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
> > >>> > wrapped in a require block, remove all references to global
> namespace
> > >>> > objects and instead require those in. Any additional third party
> > >>> > scripts you use will need to be added to the require config
> > >>> > (http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#jsfiles).
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks Erin, my gut says if we make it optional no one (but maybe
> > Mitre)
> > >>> would use it in 0.22 due to the complexity of enabling it. Making it
> > >>> optional is a breaking change but it sounds like it's a manageable
> > amount
> > >>> of work on implementors. I'll stick by my position that I'm ok with
> > making
> > >>> it required in 0.22 since it will be breaking eventually and the
> > optional
> > >>> track won't help get people prepared (just cause extra work).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Chris
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com
> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > > What would be required exactly?
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >> If we make it optional, we will basically be conditionally
AMD
> > >>> > >> defining the rave js, and to actually use require it
would be on
> > an
> > >>> > >> implementer to overlay every file that has script tags
or inline
> > >>> > >> "onclick" events. In other words it would be a big pain
and not
> > really
> > >>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message