Thanks Werner +1 for b
Regards Bernd On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Werner Punz <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok I am doing a major code reorg now, since no one answered. Here is the > deal. > > I will roll several jsf.js packages > a) A full package with everything > b) A minimal package without i18n support and additional features but ie6 > support included > c) An even smaller package with legacy browser support stripped and only > the latest browsers supported > > Additional packages which can be combined with b an c > i18n support for the additional languages > legacy browser support > experimental (non jsf 2.1 spec) features > > > I think that should give the users the possibility to choose and combine > what they need. > > I have not detailed filesize numbers but the overall package should be > slightly bigger while the minimal packages should be significantly smaller. > (Most people probably do not need the client side i18n for instance and the > additional features like the iframe file submit, while > mobile platforms as target can strip the entire legacy browser support out) > > I am not sure which package in the future will be default for the standard > jsf.js, but I assume b) would make sense and a proper documentation on how > to include the rest. > > The good news is that the code reorg helped me to isolate a load ie 6 and > old mobile browser related code, which in the future then can be dropped in > an instance. > > > Werner > > > > Am 10/14/11 1:51 PM, schrieb Werner Punz: >> >> Hello I just want to start another discussion. >> >> I have been checking the filesizes today of our jsf.js. We currently >> have 106kbyte compressed. While this is tolerable I would suggest >> following. >> I tried a quick test where I stripped out all exeperimental non spec >> features like the iframe transport the internationalized strings etc... >> >> I came down to 76 kbytes. I probably by even more strict code stripping >> would come down below 70Kbytes like we used to have before introducing >> the internationalisation and iframe features. >> >> Now here is are a few proposals: >> a) We could externalize all the internationalisation into a separate js >> file something like myfaces_extras.js. Our code fortunately is structued >> in a way that this would be easily achievable. >> >> This however would induce a second request. And we would have a >> documentation problem to notify our users. >> >> b) We could roll a jsf_minimized.js with all the features stripped and >> we could patch the implementation accordingly, that if this script is >> included the standard jsf.js is not included anymore. >> >> c) Or we could go vice versa, making line in a the jsf.js the minized >> version and add a full blown jsf_maximized.js to the mix. >> >> What is your opinon about it. I personally think there must be at least >> one minimized version in the system which does not show localized >> messages etc... >> >> Werner >> >> > > >
