> We could rewrite all those components to also support javascriptLocation, > but I don't see any benefit in doing this.
One benefit is that users who want to serve all of their images and javascript from a different location (or server) can do so. In fact, one of our users requested this feature as I was working on it. Not a big deal I admit. But its nice to have the option. > It would only tangle unrelated codes (application code and components > code). It would make it very difficult (almost impossible in some cases) to > evolve the component's design without breaking existing applications, as we > would have to support legacy javascripts that are embeded into the > applications. That is true that the user might end up breaking the code. So if they use these features its at their own risk. The flip side of breaking the code argument is that the user can enhance the code without tampering the jar. If they want to replace the imags, style or add to the javascript they can do that. Its up to them to remember to update their javascript though. I can see your point about not doing it for all components. I think we should leave it in tree2 though for the added flexability. I'll add a stern warning to the documentation about the possible risks in doing this and suggest against it. sean
