I'm all for the custom build feature - in fact it was one of the first things included on the jQuery home page when it first launched back in Jan. (I removed it at the 1.0 launch, because it was broken).
My biggest worry about having custom builds is that if a user sees something in the documentation (e.g. .height()) and then it doesn't work at all, that'll cause a lot of confusion. Figuring out what package everything is in. It is for this reason that I think any sort of package system has to be documented very explicitly so that people know what they're getting in to. This would also require that all demos, tutorials, and plugins use the lowest comon denominator of code (which will require a lot of rewriting). In all, it's very tricky, and something that we'll want to consider carefully. --John On 11/14/06, Stephen Woodbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that it would be great if we had a few bundled "flavors" like: > > jQuery-minimal.js > jQuery-lite.js > jQuery-standard.js > jQuery-heavy.js > > This way we get the benefit of claiming all the features and can claim > "starting at only xx bytes" based on the packed size of the minimal > flavor. Providing a other flavors makes it easy for uses to grab a > package of features without having to deal with build issues. > > -Steve > > John Resig wrote: > > Hi Everyone - > > > > I want to start a discussion about the features that should go into > > (or be removed from) the upcoming 1.1 release. I'd like to shoot for a > > release by the end of this month. > > > > I know that Joern already has some event code, ready to be committed - > > and I have the "non-destructive jQuery" code ready to go. Brandon > > mentioned that he wants to rewrite the jQuery.attr() in time for > > release too. > > > > No significant features are going to be added to this release, think > > of it as jQuery 1.0++. > > > > Right now, the jQuery compressed build is teetering around 18-19KB, I > > really want to try and cut this down. Any thoughts on particular > > features that should be extracted into a plugin? > > > > For example: Since the 'form' plugin already does serialization really > > really well (much better than jQuery's serialization). I'm tempted to > > remove the serialization plugin from core and just defer everyone to > > using the form plugin. > > > > Also, stuff like .height() and .width() could be removed in favor of > > using the (more powerful) methods of the same name in the 'Dimensions' > > plugin. > > > > Let me know if you have any ideas. > > > > --John _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
