I'm open to suggestions. The scriptaculous project is coupled to prototype, but i don't have an issue with depending on a separate project for the prototype scripts.
On 5/16/08, richardwilko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > hi, > > I wrote wicket prototip integration, (its in wicket-stuff-minis). > > I decided to leave out the prototype js for a couple of reasons: > > 1) so i didnt have to keep up with prototype releases (yes lazy i know) > 2) because in my wicket app we make heavy use of prototype all over the > app, > and we have a customised version of the prototype / script.aculo.us files > that we need all bundled into a single minified javascript file, however if > we run in development mode we include the non-minified single files to help > with debugging. I also had to add a minor fix to the prototype lib because > of Microsoft virtual earth. > > It might be an idea to be able to override the prototype/script.aculo.us > header contributor if the user requires it, but include it if not. > > Richard > > > > > svenmeier wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > currently we don't have a clear solution how to handle a dependency on > > prototype: > > - wicket-contrib-scriptaculous includes its own script file > > - other subprojects have a comment 'you need to include prototype.js by > > yourself' > > - if I work on my own custom components, I need to include prototype.js > or > > rely on other components to include the javascript for me. > > > > IMHO we should have a new project wicket-contrib-prototype, which sole > > purpose is to provide prototype.js as a JavascriptResourceReference. This > > would give us a clear dependecy in a project's pom. > > > > What to you think? > > > > Sven > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/wicket-contrib-prototype---tp17270378p17270834.html > > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
