Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> Jerome Velociter wrote:
>>> Modified:
>>> platform/web/trunk/standard/src/main/webapp/templates/javascript.vm
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- platform/web/trunk/standard/src/main/webapp/templates/javascript.vm
>>> 2009-04-23 19:39:22 UTC (rev 19002)
>>> +++ platform/web/trunk/standard/src/main/webapp/templates/javascript.vm
>>> 2009-04-23 20:06:46 UTC (rev 19003)
>>> @@ -10,6 +10,11 @@
>>> ##
>>> ## JS Libraries.
>>> ##
>>> +$xwiki.jsfx.use('js/scriptaculous/effects.js', true)
>>> +$xwiki.jsfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/modalPopup.js', true)
>>> +$xwiki.ssfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/modalPopup.css', true)
>>> +$xwiki.jsfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/jumpToPage.js', true)
>>> +$xwiki.ssfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/jumpToPage.css', true)
>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>> src="$xwiki.getSkinFile("js/prototype/prototype.js")"></script>
>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>> src="$xwiki.getSkinFile("js/xwiki/xwiki.js", true)"></script>
>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>> src="$xwiki.getSkinFile("js/xwiki/compatibility.js", true)"></script>
>>>
>> We should decide on which way we want to include our JS/CSS in
>> templates. I'd say only with (js|ss)fx plugin is ok.
>>
>
> I don't know, this will create a stronger dependency on the plugin. Are
> we 100% sure we want that?
>
> I guess that if a sysadmin decides to remove the js plugins, then he can
> also replace these calls with <script> tags, too, so I don't think that
> this is a severe problem. using jsfx seems better to me, too.
Also, with jsfx is the order in which the resulting script tags are
written down deterministic ? Is it First In First Out ? If not then it's
probably too dangerous.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
