Agreed. We need two new standards.
1. @requires in the docs format, which would only require a change in
the API generating code to have it look for that (if it doesn't
already).
2. A standard way and convention for specifying version numbers for
plugins which can be read by the docs, and preferably by the JS
itself.
I'd like for the version to have a standard location and convention in
the code of the plugin so that I can throw an error in my plugin if
the dev has made a mistake by including an old plugin (or none at
all). I'd rather alert during development, then have an obscure bug
show up in production. I suggest something like:
// inside block context
var plugin = $.fn.myPlugin = function(){
return this.each(...);
}
plugin.version = '0.0.1';
or
jQuery.fn.myPlugin = function(){
arguments.callee.version = '0.0.1';
return this.each(...);
}
Having it in the documents comments would be good as well so it can
show on sites like visualjquery.com... but I think it would be quite
advantageous to be able to require version 0.0.1+ in the code. Though,
we would need a function to check version depending on the agreed upon
version numbering scheme.
I also agree with the recommended/custom approach for the download.
People with the tools and knowledge are doing this now with the build
system. Copying that system online (much like Corey did earlier in the
thread) would be an excellent way for those with special needs for
bandwidth or functionality to get their wish without having to install
ant. Don't have the system on the download page, but have it linked
from there.
On 11/17/06, Stephen Woodbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jörn Zaefferer wrote:
> >> jQuery documentation should clearly illustrate which base / core
> >> jQuery is required and dependencies should be illustrated in a
> >> clear manor. I think the php pear site exemplifies this, i think
> >> this is mostly covered but could be a touch clearer.
> >
> > PHP PEAR is a bad example: In most cases you won't care about 5 or 50
> > additonal php files on your server, but you can't do this with js
> > files.
> >
> > I think the recommended/custom way is a good approach: API
> > documentation and tutorials are all written with the recommended
> > version as their base.
> >
> > When a single plugin has dependencies on another plugin, it must be
> > explicitly stated somewhere. A package/requires system that
> > automatically resolves those dependencies would be nice, but I don't
> > think this should have a high priority.
>
> I would agree with Jörn, and expand that I think we need to require
> plugins include a:
>
> @Requires: blahblah.js[, version: 29+]
> @Requires: morestuff.js
>
> We are rapidly getting a large number of plugins and more and more of
> them seem to be using other plugins which is really good. This will help
> users figure out what plugins and versions they might need and it will
> supply the info needed for some future package system to figure this out
> also.
>
> -Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> jQuery mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://jquery.com/discuss/
>
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
[email protected]
http://jquery.com/discuss/
