Fair enough Marius - I just didn't remember seeing it is all and wanted to check we were following the process for all the changes made to Lift. You know im a stickler for process ;-)
Your proposed solution sounds good though - I agree JsArtifacts is certainly under explored; like a lot of parts of Lift. Cheers, Tim On 23 Feb 2010, at 21:21, Marius wrote: > 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. > > -- 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.
