On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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). > > No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is > that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time > since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR > you don't really have any official API allowing to do that.
Well you do something similar for jars already since you're saving them in the work directory. What I was thinking is that we could modify Environment to support having several Resources directories (and to be able to add resource directories) and to have the EM register a new resource dir at app init time. In Environment, when looking for a resource we would check each resource dir in turn, looking for the asked resource. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent >> 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
