Ian Roughley wrote:
This is where my knowledge of dojo falls short, perhaps Martin can assist.
What I was planning on doing was using a compressed JS profile of dojo,
and removing the individual files from the saf src. If we are pulling
in individual files via dojo.require() do we need to keep the dojo src
in the saf src?
Since we are using Dojo now for tooltips, we are importing a minimal dojo profile on every page (simple/head.ftl).
Therefore, I think it is important to keep this minimal, leaving components to require other parts of dojo as they need.
The power user will override simple/head.ftl and import the exact parts of dojo it needs so the later requires won't
have a performance impact.
Don
If you like I can assist, but I won't have time till late next week at
the earliest.
/Ian
Don Brown wrote:
Ian, what about using the minimal profile, but each component that
needs something more can do a dojo.require() to pull it in? A user's
application, that knows they need more, can overwrite head.ftl to
change the profile. This is the change I plan to do today.
Don
Ian Roughley wrote:
Martin - which profile do you suggest? I had a quick look over the
profiles awhile back, and the only ones from the kitchen sick that I
thought could be removed were "flash" and "storage" - especially with
the incorporation of more widgets.
The other option would be to have different profiles to download
which are dependent on which widgets you are using, but this seems
like it would be much more trouble as well as more custom
configuration (which we have been trying to avoid). What are your
thoughts?
My other plan (to which I owe Jason an apology as I ran out of time)
was to upgrade to 0.2.2 and use the compressed version rather than
the exploded version.
BTW - the dojo editor is already incorporated as an ajax themed
textarea, however as for 0.2.1 it is still seems a little buggy.
/Ian
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 4/12/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm starting to look into replacing the LGPL Javascript components
with
ones provided by Dojo, a toolkit we are already
using. Dojo already has the following widgets:
- date picker -
http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/tests/widget/test_DatePicker.html
- tooltip -
http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/tests/widget/test_Tooltip.html
- rich text editor -
http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/tests/widget/test_Editor.html
My question is how should we handle the Dojo imports? Currently
Dojo is
only imported in the header of the ajax theme.
I propose we import dojo.js in the header of the simple theme
(which is
imported by the other themes), leaving each
component to do the dojo.require() call to ensure their widget is
available.
This makes sense to me.
However, I think we should change the current strategy on the Dojo
profile
that's bundled by default. It looks like the kitchen sink profile is
what's
bundled today. It would make more sense, IMHO, to bundle the minimal
profile
(or at least somewhat more minimal than kitchen sink) by default,
and to
provide the kitchen sink as an option and / or provide instructions
on how
to construct a custom profile (which is really easy). I'm certainly
willing
to help out here.
--
Martin Cooper
Don
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
