rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Franklin <m.ben.frank...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Require.js in 0.22
Date Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:38:31 GMT
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