On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/18/2012 03:49 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. > > > Actually it is possible, jsrx offers files from inside jars.
That's for on demand skin extensions but Vincent was talking about installing a full filesystem skin or adding more things in resources/ folder. > > >>> >>> 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 >>> > > > -- > Sergiu Dumitriu > http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
