Marius <[email protected]> writes: > Yes we do have different perspectives. I'm saying "for page X here > these are the JS dependencies" whether you seem to say "here is a > snippet, and it needs these dependencies"
Yes > I'd still prefer my paradigm (not because of my ego) because it'd be > easier to manage redundancies, it applies generically for snippets, > comet actors etc. without having to induce other type of API. It is > maybe coarse grained vs. your proposal that seems to me finner > grained. I think the two can co-exist, although I haven't thought it through wrt comet actors etc. That was what I was hinting at in the previous mail. At the of the day (or before sending a response at least :-) a page needs to have a well-defined list of script files to include. So it makes sense to start with "your" paradigm and "my" paradigm should be able to be layered on top if one wishes... > However I'd be happy to see an implementation of any of these > proposals. Maybe other people would have better ideas so perhaps Peter > and/oryou could dig could make this happen? I'll let Peter take the lead and help where ever I can :-) /Jeppe -- 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.
