+1 (and we might as well add 1.4.2 as well/instead :-) On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Marius <[email protected]> wrote: > Guys, > > This has been added not so long ago, and I am aware that I should > express my perspective on this back then as now it might be too late. > IMHO LiftRules or other Lift parts except the JsArtifacts and maybe > ResourceServer should not even be aware of the underlying JS framework > thus the JQuery name in LiftRules is very unsound to me. > > > Here is other proposal of keeping things decoupled: > > . > We currently have JQueryArtifacts which holds the JQuery > implementation. > > We add in the JsArtifacts this: > > trait JsArtifacts { > ... > def version > } > > then > > case class JQueryArtifacts1_3_2 extends JQueryArtifacts { > def version = "1.3.2-min" > } > > case class JQueryArtifacts1_4_1 extends JQueryArtifacts { > def version = "1.4.1-min" > } > > Then to select one or another we use the existent mechanism: > > LiftRules.jsArtifacts = JQueryArtifacts1_3_2 // by default and people > can change this easily > > > then in ResourceServer we can easily make the version selection. > > > In this way LiftRules has no idea about JQuery, YUI etc .... and it > doesn't need to. it is only about feeding different implementations of > JsArtifact. > > Thoughts? > > Br's, > Marius > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
