guys, one consideration on the side I read that people are planning to separate css for projects and then unify them at build time. When we have a plugable system, how are ui parts of plugins going to be integrated? If they are supposed to be integrated into a single file on build time, that's going against the objectives of the plugin system to be. So is there going to be a just in time merging process? Is this how grunt and the other proposed tools deal with it?
looking for some education, Daan On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Brian Federle <brian.fede...@citrix.com> wrote: > Yeah, that would be a great idea...it would drastically reduce initial load > time for the UI. > > OK, I've created a new branch called ui-css-framework. Right now all it does > is rename cloudstack3.css -> cloudstack3.scss. This of course will make the > UI have no style if running right now, but once a SASS compiler is working > then it should compile cloudstack3.css in the same folder. > > Feel free to use this branch to test out any build modifications for > SASS/Grunt...let me know if any code changes are necessary. > > Thanks! > Brian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shiva Teja [mailto:shivate...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:32 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CSS framework for CloudStack UI > > Another positive side of using grunt would be to minimize and package > javascript. Currently, we load a huge number of javascript files separately. > It'd be great if we can minimize them into a single file during build. Also, > if we were to add any UI tests using libraries like jasmine, grunt makes it > easy automate them. > > Shiva Teja > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Brian Federle > <brian.fede...@citrix.com>wrote: > >> Yeah, I'm definitely thinking the newer spec, which is better for us >> anyway since it is backwards-compatible with existing CSS. >> >> What I'll do is setup a dummy branch, which basically renames >> cloudstack3.css to cloudstack.scss or something like that, without >> much modification right now, and then see if it can be converted to the .css. >> >> Re: NPM, -- that is actually why I suggested the SASS plugin instead >> of the vanilla version of sass (installed via gem), since it would >> prevent people from having to install yet another dependency on their >> system, since I believe all required libs (including jRuby) are >> packaged in the jar, which may eliminate the need for Grunt for now? >> >> -Brian >> ________________________________________ >> From: Chip Childers [chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:01 AM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Cc: Rayees Namathponnan; Frank Zhang; Animesh Chaturvedi >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CSS framework for CloudStack UI >> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:53:18AM +0530, Amit Das wrote: >> > Hi Brian, >> > >> > I agree with Edison on usage of grunt & using maven-exec to call grunt. >> > >> > Will wait for your repository that has your experiments. >> > I believe setting up the Maven tasks will be a one-time setting & >> > should work without issues. >> >> IIRC, Grunt is installed via NPM. So does that pull in a bunch of new >> developer requirements to build the project? Is there a standalone >> installation for Grunt to lighten the build dependency chain? >> >> How about using SassC? [1] >> >> Let's be sure to use the scss spec, not the sass older style (HAML >> inspired)! That appears to be Hampton's focus these days [2]. >> >> -chip >> >> [1] https://github.com/hcatlin/sassc >> [2] Per intro on http://sass-lang.com/ >>
