+1 This will save anyone that is using 0.21 SNAPSHOT. Release 0.22 and then merge onto 0.22 SNAPSHOT
-Sean On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jasha Joachimsthal <[email protected]>wrote: > It's been 2 months since the last release. Let's do a 0.22 release first > with the bug fixes and improvements. After the release merge the require > branch into trunk and document how to migrate existing installations. > > Jasha > > On 1 July 2013 16:38, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > >>> > > >
