Jerome Velociter wrote: > On 11/12/09 1:25 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >> Hi Jerome, >> >> Jerome Velociter wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I think it would be nice to have the possibility to post-load some of >>> the JavaScript extensions, as a way to ease performance best practices >>> for developers. (See >>> http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#postload for example). >>> >>> It would also allow people to easily add hungry third party scripts >>> (like the google analytics tracker) in a non intrusive manner and not >>> sacrificing performance (no need to modify/override htmlfooter.vm for >>> example, a simple SX always-use will do). >>> >>> I see different ways of doing that : >>> >>> 1) Either we say all document JSX are post-loaded, and we move the hook >>> down the DOM just before the closing</body> tag. >> This poses a problem in WYSIWYG editing mode. I'm currently loading the >> JSX in edit mode in order for the page to look as in view mode. Placing >> the hook inside the editable body is dangerous. > > In the case of the WYSIWYG we could keep it in the header (I believe you > already are placing the hook yourself and do not use javascript.vm, > right ?).
I'm including the javascript.vm and thus I inherit the hook position (as long as the position is in the head of course). Now, wouldn't be better to write a JSX post-onload downloader? It should be small enough to be placed in the head and it will fetch all the deferrable JSX after the DOM is ready. I understand that some JS frameworks already support this. WDYT? > > BTW is it such a good idea to load extensions in edit mode? > I'm not very convinced, since some extensions could affect the content > of the edited DOM, leading to weird content. (Think about the addSizes > extension of the SX tutorial for example > http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/SkinExtensionsTutorial). There were some complains regarding the fact that the live table doesn't look the same in edit mode so I had to load the extensions in edit mode ( http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3991 ). This is just an example. Once we have transformation markers any JSX will be able to change the DOM provided the changes are marked. Also, I'm thinking that a macro could use a JSX to "draw" something on the page. If JSX are not loaded in edit mode the page will look different. Marius > > Jerome. >> Marius >> >>> 2) Either we have 2 hooks and we leave it as an option to be post-loaded. >>> >>> My preference goes to 1), as I don't see any good use case where a >>> extension would need not to be post-loaded; and 2) is not so elegant to >>> implement with the current SX mecanism. >>> >>> WDYT ? >>> >>> (Note: I'm not talking about file-system extensions here (JSFX), though >>> the question could be asked for them as well - I need to give it more >>> thoughts) >>> >>> Jerome. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devs mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
