On 11/13/06, Ashish Agrawal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I feel really uncomfortable to deploy Packed version of MochiKit.js. I > found is big for no good reason (latest is 161kb). > > I think problem behind such big file is we are having all MochiKit > JavaScript files packed in single JS file. My suggestion to have this > divided in 2 parts - Base and others. Base (MochiKit.js) will have all > the base JS files like Base, Color, DateTime, Format, Async etc. These > are the files which generally required to develop new libs. Others > could be compressed individually like Controls, DragDrop, Sortable etc. > Even Logging should not be part of Base lib - at least not for > distribution packed js. > > I have created 2 libs - ColorPicker and Form Validators, I found that I > am using only Base libraries. I like to have to deployed in more slim > package then what is available right now.. It will be great if we can > have something like this. > > As per my understanding ( and from looking dependencies in documents) I > think bellow list can be considered as base namespaces. > > MochiKit.Async > MochiKit.Base > MochiKit.DOM > MochiKit.Color > MochiKit.DateTime > MochiKit.Format > MochiKit.Iter > MochiKit.Signal > MochiKit.Style > MochiKit.Visual > > Thanks in advance...
The packed file is for convenience. If you want something smaller suited for your application, pack it yourself. The script is provided as scripts/pack.py. It takes module names as arguments. All it requires is a Java and a Python installation. -bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MochiKit" 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/mochikit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
