rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
Subject Re: Require.js in 0.22
Date Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:43:24 GMT
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