IMO, latter; but, I would allow 72 hrs for lazy consensus review. Other opinions?
On Monday, July 1, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote: > Hi All, > > The require.js branch is nearing completion, and I expect it will be > ready to bring back into trunk within the next day or two. Should the > merge be submitted as a patch through the review board, or should I > just go ahead with it when it is ready, and provide an 0.21 -> 0.22 > guide? > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey all, just to be clear since Dan's patch created a bit of confusion > > - I created a "require" branch for this task. Since this is a pretty > > broad change I felt we needed a branch to collaborate and complete the > > changes. I am expecting a number of patches to be submitted against it > > in the next couple weeks. > > > > Let me know if there are any concerns. > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Erin Noe-Payne < > [email protected] > >>> >wrote: > >>> > >>> > Specifically, the idea of require js is to take all references off of > >>> > the global namespace and to build out and resolve a dependency tree > >>> > for your client side code. So if we made it optional, then someone > >>> > who wanted to take advantage of the feature would need to overlay any > >>> > place where there is a reference to the global rave object. That > >>> > includes jsps where there is a script block that uses rave.*, and > wrap > >>> > that in a require block. You would also need to overlay the java > class > >>> > that inserts rave.registerWidget(...) onto the page and wrap those in > >>> > require blocks. Also any jsp that has an onclick="rave.*" event > >>> > handler, those would need to be moved to jquery bindings and wrapped > >>> > in require blocks. Once you had that you would overlay the > >>> > rave_script.js tag so that instead of link all the scripts, you just > >>> > reference require.js with a data-main attribute pointing to your > >>> > bootstrapping script. (See http://requirejs.org/docs/start.html). > >>> > > >>> > If instead we make a breaking change, then we would do all of the > >>> > above work on trunk. An implementer who wanted to go to 0.22 would > >>> > then be responsible for updating their scripts to be written as AMD > >>> > modules (http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#define). The script is > >>> > wrapped in a require block, remove all references to global namespace > >>> > objects and instead require those in. Any additional third party > >>> > scripts you use will need to be added to the require config > >>> > (http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#jsfiles). > >>> > > >>> > >>> Thanks Erin, my gut says if we make it optional no one (but maybe > Mitre) > >>> would use it in 0.22 due to the complexity of enabling it. Making it > >>> optional is a breaking change but it sounds like it's a manageable > amount > >>> of work on implementors. I'll stick by my position that I'm ok with > making > >>> it required in 0.22 since it will be breaking eventually and the > optional > >>> track won't help get people prepared (just cause extra work). > >>> > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > What would be required exactly? > >>> > > > >>> > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > >> If we make it optional, we will basically be conditionally AMD > >>> > >> defining the rave js, and to actually use require it would be on > an > >>> > >> implementer to overlay every file that has script tags or inline > >>> > >> "onclick" events. In other words it would be a big pain and not > really > >>>
