I tend to be in this camp as well. At 20k packed, I don't really see the point of breaking it all up. And with people's use of plugins, I'd be interested to see a breakdown of customized vs full package downloads.
There's been much debate on this, but in the end I guess we must trust the devs for a solution most will be satisfied with. Adam Matt Kruse-2 wrote: > > The benefit of having a single (small) package is that the same > functionality > is there all the time, every time. You don't have different versions of js > files on different pages and being cached separately. You don't wonder why > plugin X doesn't work, then realize that you have package Y of jQuery > instead > of package Z. Instead of plugins just requiring jQuery, they would require > components A, B, and C of jQuery. It just adds a whole level of confusion. > > Matt Kruse > > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Jquery-can-learn-from-Mootools-for-distribution-its-code-tf3449500.html#a9631954 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
