I'm not as concerned with file size as I once was. ~20k is smaller than a single medium-sized JPG. Plus, once it gets cached, the file size is no longer an issue. I'm all for smaller file size, but I'd much rather see new development in speed or functionality than have you devs spend time building this packaging tool.
andy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of agent2026 Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:16 AM To: discuss@jquery.com Subject: Re: [jQuery] Jquery can learn from Mootools for distribution its code 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-co de-tf3449500.html#a9631954 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/ _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
