Conceptually I think @Import has it right. If you decide to add a JavaScript file to a stack, to me that means it is part of a group of files that are supposed to be together. On Feb 20, 2015 6:33 AM, "Jochen Kemnade" <jochen.kemn...@eddyson.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > this is related to TAP5-2238 and TAP5-2139. > If you @Import a JavaScript module in a page class, and that module is > part of a stack, the whole stack is imported. > If you require a JavaScript module from the client, and that module is > part of a stack, only the module is imported. > > The behavior is different and that's caused issues and confusion for me > (again) in relation with TAP5-2139. > > I have created a stack for a single module that cannot be minified > correctly. If I @Import it, it is added unminified, but if I require it > from the client, it is minified nonetheless. > > I suggest that if a module is required from JS and the module is part of a > stack, we send a redirect to the stack. > > Howard, your last comment in TAP5-2238 is, that this either unfixable or > invalid on its own. Could you explain why? > > Jochen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
