Hi, Thanks for explanation. I think your reasoning make sense.
Cheers Kamil Gałuszka On Monday, May 27, 2013 10:48:35 AM UTC+2, Claude Paroz wrote: > > > > Le lundi 27 mai 2013 07:38:54 UTC+2, Carl Meyer a écrit : >> >> Hi Kamil, >> >> On 05/26/2013 05:39 PM, Kamil Gałuszka wrote: >> > Hi Django developers! >> > >> > This is my first time here posting, so if I'm wrong please forgive me >> :) >> > I wanna learn as much as possible about django development process from >> > you guys! >> > Thank you all for inspiring time on DjangoCon.eu sprints ! >> > >> > I'm writing because I'm concerned about OpenLayers that are used in >> > django.contrib.gis.admin. For now JS of OpenLayers is shipped with >> > external url from openlayers hosting. >> > >> > There are some drawback of this situation and it's causing bugs in >> > specific circumstances. For example if you are using Chrome browser and >> > your website is using https all non https javascript are blocked by >> > default. So widget in django admin isn't rendering and it's broken (I >> > think that should be considered as a bug and possibility of security >> > problems if someone switch openlayer.js on external hosting). >> > >> > I think the best approach to that problem is that we should ship >> > OpenLayer.js in Django statics. OpenLayers documentation is encouraging >> > to ship in applications own builds of this library. To read more: >> > http://docs.openlayers.org/library/deploying.html >> > >> > I have question is this approach good for Django (to actually compile >> > own build of OpenLayer and ship it in statics) and is this change can >> be >> > possible place of breaking something with backward compatibility. >> > >> > Things in my mind to consider: >> > 1) With every next Django release I think there should be building of >> > most actual OL. >> > 2) Shipping OL actually should be optional and documented in docs. >> > >> > If there isn't any problem with that approach I'm ready to implement >> this. >> >> I'm not familiar with any history in this area (so I'll defer to anyone >> who knows a good reason why we do it the way we do), but it makes sense >> to me that it would be better to ship an OpenLayers.js build than link >> to it externally, for security and reliability reasons. >> > > I was not there at the time of this design decision either, however I can > imagine that including a lib weighing more than 700 Ko in every Django > release just for a contrib app is not something to be taken lightly. > > Note that Django 1.6 will introduce some new template-based widgets for > GeoDjango, so changing the OpenLayers source is as simple as subclassing > the new BaseGeometryWidget and redefining its Media class. > > Claude > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
