Personally I think Jon followed the correct process. I do remember discussions on this list and on review board. JsArtifacts is somehow under-explored ... I carry a good part of the "blame" as I should have pointed the perspective towards JsArtifacts.
Anyways the proposed fix for #363 is on the review board now. Essentially the JsArtifacts implementation owns the path rewriting rules now for its own domain. Br's, Marius On 23 feb., 22:04, Timothy Perrett <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, did it go through a discussion on the mailing list? I dont > remember seeing it? (and I cant find it in the archives if it was) > > Anything like this really needs discussion on the mailing list as its > fundamental to the Lift story and we need to maintain a consistent > API. > > Cheers, Tim > > On Feb 23, 7:48 pm, Jonathan Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I originally added LiftRules.jQueryVersion, but I agree that this is a much > > better solution. > > > thanks, > > > - Jon > > On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:00 AM, Marius wrote: > > > > I opened this > > > ticket:http://www.assembla.com/spaces/liftweb/tickets/363-liftrules-jqueryve... > > > > I realize that this would bring a slight breaking change but I believe > > > it is worth it. > > > > Folks please speak up if you think otherwise. > > > > Br's, > > > Marius > > > > On Feb 23, 10:25 am, Marius <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> (yeah forgive me :) ...) > > > >> On Feb 23, 10:18 am, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> +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 > > >>>> athttp://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 > > > athttp://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.
