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, 02 Jul 2013 16:37:47 GMT
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.


>
> 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