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 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 14:47:33 GMT
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.


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