This should be my last one, I hope. :-) And it's just to clarify this, for people who care about the packaging story for JavaScript.
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Gary Poster <[email protected]> wrote: > > Here's a summary of my understanding. Please correct. > > - We all like working with packaged software. > - YUI has a story for this. It is a story that the JS experts at Canonical > have rejected: using Yahoo's CDN. No one really rejected using Yahoo's CDN. I think all of us would prefer this. It doesn't support SSL. http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/faq/#cdnssl So it wasn't so much rejected and much as just not possible. If you don't use the CDN, Yahoo recommends building a single js file and using that, which has been the approach until now. But that doesn't scale with the growth of YUI, and now we want to do a combo loader. There are some other issues with using a combo loader and our setup that contributed to the single file approach initially, too. > - lazr-js was supposed to be Canonical's story for this. It has at least two > problems. > * First, it uses Python build tools for something that is JS only. We're > already off on our own since we are not using the CDN, and this makes it more > isolated. [I vaguely think there are other problems with this too?] It adds a layer between development. You can't do anything in lazr-js (or Launchpad js) without a build step, which is heavy handed for js development. See this entire discussion. If lazr-js was just a bzr branch, Brad could have added the gallery file and kept rolling with development. Also, it takes for freakin' ever to build lazr-js trunk on its own for the first time. For what? To run 200 tests? ;) This block adoption of lazr-js across the company or outside the company. > * Second, it is a shared resource, shared across Canonical. This > encourages slower, more thoughtful changes that look towards building > company-wide consensus. It is less appropriate for quick, > application-specific work. > - Because of this, the Canonical JS experts are excited and pleased for Paul > to do the work he describes. > Yup, exactly. This will all get better with Paul's work, but we should still be thoughtful about what we pull into lazr-js. It should be a shared library, not a place to dump every single js fcould have added the gallery file and kept rolling with development.ile we might one day use. Cheers, deryck -- Deryck Hodge https://launchpad.net/~deryck http://www.devurandom.org/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
