I don't think only including the dojo.js is OK.. I might make you confusing
on the reference to "dojo/0.4/dojo.js" stated above, and that ref can be saw
as a sign which represents the project(debug-view) depends on the
dojo-legacy project, which is not saying the jsps only need the dojo.js. eg:
<script type="text/javascript">
dojo.require("dojo.lang.*");
dojo.require("dojo.widget.*");
// Pane includes
dojo.require("dojo.widget.ContentPane");
dojo.require("dojo.widget.LayoutContainer"); // Before: LayoutPane
dojo.require("dojo.widget.SplitContainer"); // Before: SplitPane
// Tree includes
dojo.require("dojo.widget.Tree");
dojo.require("dojo.widget.TreeBasicController");
dojo.require("dojo.widget.TreeContextMenu");
dojo.require("dojo.widget.TreeSelector");
// Tab includes
dojo.require("dojo.widget.TabContainer");
// Etc includes
dojo.require("dojo.widget.SortableTable");
dojo.require("dojo.widget.ComboBox");
dojo.require("dojo.widget.Tooltip");
dojo.require("dojo.widget.validate");
// Includes Dojo source for debugging
// dojo.hostenv.writeIncludes();
</script>
that says it needs the files in src folder.
-Rex
2009/7/16 David Jencks <[email protected]>
>
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:12 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Rex Wang wrote:
>
> tried it.
>
> 1.
> svn co
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
> mvn clean install
> success!
>
> 2.
> modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff
> the patch in attachment shows the modification.
> build successfully
>
> 3.
> I did not build the entire server, but just remove the old one, and install
> the new one.
> I believe only the debug-views portlets use this legacy dojo, because when
> I stop the dojo-legacy-tomcat plugin, only the debugviews-console-tomcat web
> project stopped autoly. and I also searched all the jsps underneath plugins
> folder in the server build tree, only show the ones from debugviews holding
> reference to "/dojo/0.4/dojo.js"
>
> results:
> Unfortunately, the debugviews portlet don't display corretly...
>
> I make some screen shot. Shall we open a jira for this so that I can upload
> them, which apparently shows dojo not work correctly?
>
>
> Or we could try to fix them :-)
>
> I looked at the two war files and they are different and I wonder what we
> actually use.
>
> old war (geronimo-dojo-legacy):
> -rw-r--r-- 151841 15-May-2007 02:11:02 dojo.js
> -rw-r--r-- 326567 15-May-2007 02:11:04 dojo.js.uncompressed.js
> -rw-r--r-- 1170 15-May-2007 02:06:02 flash6_gateway.swf
> -rw-r--r-- 2364 15-May-2007 02:06:02 iframe_history.html
> -rw-r--r-- 11346 15-May-2007 02:06:02 LICENSE
> -rw-r--r-- 13133 14-Jul-2009 15:01:02 META-INF/LICENSE
> -rw-r--r-- 587 14-Jul-2009 15:01:02 META-INF/NOTICE
> -rw-r--r-- 1609 15-May-2007 02:11:32 src/a11y.js
> ......
> everything else is under src/
>
> new war (geronimo-dojo-0.4.3):
> just the contents of src from geronimo-dojo-legacy.
>
> So what do we actually use here? if its just dojo.js we can shrink it by
> leaving out the uncompressed.js and all the little files. If its just the
> little files under src we can use the new war and change the references to
> leave out the "src/" bit. Maybe I can come up with an alternate profile to
> build a war with just dojo.js in it??
>
>
> My latest theory is that the only file we use is dojo.js. My other theory
> here is that if we can legally have the dojo zip file in an svn repo then we
> can just as well have the dojo.js text file in our svn repo as a source
> file.
>
> So I modified the externals project to just include this file, from
> src/main/webapp. I also fixed the groupId.
>
> Could you try out this revised version?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> wishing I understood javascript delivery even a little bit...
> david jencks
>
>
> HTH
> Rex.
>
>
> 2009/7/15 Rex Wang <[email protected]>
>
>> I'd like to try it :-)
>> -Rex
>>
>> 2009/7/15 David Jencks <[email protected]>
>>
>> Jay -- many thanks for trying out the patch and committing it.
>>>
>>> I think the last artifact in our svn repo is the dojo 0.4.3. I can't
>>> find it released anywhere but the source code is in a handy svn repo. I
>>> cooked up a modification of our war-packaging for it that uses the maven scm
>>> plugin to check out the source so it can be packaged easily. I wonder if
>>> someone could try this out and see if it works?
>>>
>>> -- check out new war project and build it
>>> svn co
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/trunk/geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
>>> cd geronimo-dojo-0.4.3
>>> mvn clean install
>>>
>>> -- modify the plugins/dojo-legacy stuff so that
>>> geronimo-dojo-legacy is not built
>>> the dojo-legacy-jetty and dojo-legacy-tomcat plugins use the
>>> geronimo-dojo-0.4.3-1.0-SNAPSHOT war file instead of the
>>> geronimo-dojo-legacy war.
>>>
>>> -- build the server and see if the parts that use the legacy dojo still
>>> work (debug views??? I'm not sure)
>>>
>>> many thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm starting to take a look at it today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have a 1.3.1 version out - any objections to me switching the
>>>>>> patch
>>>>>> to use it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all -- I just thought I'd start small since usually I change 18
>>>>> things at once and then can't tell what change broke what feature :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think kevan mentioned offline he might take a look also. I think
>>>>> I've been running locally with this patch for a couple weeks and haven't
>>>>> seen any admin console problems, but that doesn't mean much one way or
>>>>> another.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I built with the patch and ran testsuite on Jetty. Everything looked
>>>> good to me (except for a corba-testsuite test that hung).
>>>>
>>>> Jay,
>>>> If you can test with the latest Dojo version and things look good to
>>>> you, I'd say go ahead and apply the updates.
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
>>>>
>>>
>>
> <dojo-legacy.patch>
>
>
>
>
