I'd like to keep the core libraries "widget-free". the wicketstuff-scriptaculous should only contain the core scriptaculous library and a Java API for interacting with the core scriptaculous components and effects.
this is definitely a tricky area, and I keep going back and forth on the "best way". I like the idea of each component having its own project with its own release cycle since it's very likely that each component will have its own development team, but this could get out of hand. creating a wicketstuff-scriptaculous-extensions project seems like a very reasonable approach as well. The only issue with that is that all components need to be compatible with the same version of scriptaculous, which seems like a reasonable assumption. I'm really open to either approach, and would be interested in hearing others comments. I would recommend going down the path of least resistence for now. Since we don't have 100 scriptaculous widgets, maybe it would be best to keep them separate until we reach "critical mass" and address lumping them together at a later point. On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Sven Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So we need wicketstuff-scriptaculous-extensions? > > I'm planning to publish a new component next week that depends on > wicketstuff-prototype only. > Do we need an additional wicketstuff-prototype-extensions then? > > This might get out of hands - I'd rather keep these minis in minis ;). > > Sven > > richardwilko schrieb: > > I've been thinking, it might make more sense for the prototip behaviour to >> live in wicketstuff-scriptaculous rather than in wicketstuff-minis, as is >> it >> a prototype/scriptaculous behaviour, or for us to make new project which >> extends wicketstuff-scriptaculous for 3rd party javascripts which are >> based >> on the prototype/scriptaculous libs. this way we wont introduce a >> dependency on the minis project when most of the minis stuff doesnt need >> it. >> >> >> >> >> svenmeier wrote: >> >> >>> Hello Ryan, >>> >>> I've created an issue in JIRA and attached a patch, so that >>> wicketstuff-scriptaculous can utilize wicket-prototype. >>> >>> BTW >>> - did you have time to check my other patch for sorting of arbitrary >>> containers? >>> - it seems that teamcity has to be adjusted for the new project location >>> of wicketstuff-scriptaculous. >>> - is it ok if I check in an udpated Eclipse project? It's still named >>> "wicket-contrib-scriptaculous' and uses M2Elipse's >>> MAVEN2_CLASSPATH_CONTAINER variable instead of M2_REPO. Or should we just >>> remove it from the repository? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Sven >>> >>> Ryan Sonnek schrieb: >>> >>> >>>> patches welcome. =) >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM, richardwilko < >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think the option for setting your own javascript file location is a >>>>> must, >>>>> that way most people can just use the bundled prototype, but if you >>>>> have >>>>> specific needs then you can easily override it. >>>>> >>>>> Richard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> svenmeier wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> @Ryan >>>>>> thanks for stepping in. Since scriptaculous depends heavily on >>>>>> prototype, it would be nice to have your project supporting my >>>>>> proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> @Richard >>>>>> If your project needs a custom version of prototype, could you build >>>>>> and >>>>>> use a custom wicket-prototype package? Or we could make the new header >>>>>> contributer configurable (e.g. through a context setting) where it >>>>>> should load the javascript from. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, do we need a vote for this? If not, could one of the committers >>>>>> please set up a new project "wicket-contrib-prototype"? >>>>>> >>>>>> I could then check in a single class PrototypeHeaderContributor >>>>>> accompanied by prototype.js. >>>>>> All projects that want to join this standardization just have to add a >>>>>> maven dependency and let their components use the new header >>>>>> contributor. >>>>>> The following projects have the script included currently: >>>>>> wicket-contrib-scriptaculous >>>>>> pickwick >>>>>> wicket-security >>>>>> wicketstuff-lightbox >>>>>> wicket-flickr >>>>>> wicketstuff-minis has a documented dependency (and there might be >>>>>> others >>>>>> too) >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course wicket users who want to enhance their own components with >>>>>> some prototype javascript can use the new project directly in their >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> pages. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Sven >>>>>> >>>>>> Ryan Sonnek schrieb: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.nabble.com/wicket-contrib-prototype---tp17270378p17304384.html >>>>> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
