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 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 14:02:39 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message