On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote: > Hi devs, > > Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery > plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions > developers to integrate such scripts ? > Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE. > > If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many extensions > bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page > loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer experience. > > An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX) > that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery. > > What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have an extension dependency on jquery). However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? - We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example too). So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an extension as soon as we can have that. BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs filesystem? The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be comparable no? The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side cache) So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to bundle it as an on-demand JSX. Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
