rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Cooper <secoo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Require.js in 0.22
Date Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:17:05 GMT
+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
> > > >>> > 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