Jörn Zaefferer wrote: >> jQuery documentation should clearly illustrate which base / core >> jQuery is required and dependencies should be illustrated in a >> clear manor. I think the php pear site exemplifies this, i think >> this is mostly covered but could be a touch clearer. > > PHP PEAR is a bad example: In most cases you won't care about 5 or 50 > additonal php files on your server, but you can't do this with js > files. > > I think the recommended/custom way is a good approach: API > documentation and tutorials are all written with the recommended > version as their base. > > When a single plugin has dependencies on another plugin, it must be > explicitly stated somewhere. A package/requires system that > automatically resolves those dependencies would be nice, but I don't > think this should have a high priority.
I would agree with Jörn, and expand that I think we need to require plugins include a: @Requires: blahblah.js[, version: 29+] @Requires: morestuff.js We are rapidly getting a large number of plugins and more and more of them seem to be using other plugins which is really good. This will help users figure out what plugins and versions they might need and it will supply the info needed for some future package system to figure this out also. -Steve _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
