Hey Jon, I can sympathize (with all my Clientcide plugins). The Clientcide files are not up on the Forge for much the same reason; splitting them up is going to require a lot of time and make managing the content more arduous.
But the Forge isn't really designed for such projects, at least not currently. Large scale UI projects that have lots of components are really the exception to the rule when you look at plugins around the web for JS frameworks (not just MooTools). Most of the things out there are small, self-contained widgets. The forge is aimed at this majority with a keen eye on github and it's encouraged forking. Forking a plugin and making it better makes sense when the repository is just that plugin. It's different when forking a plugin means forking an entire large library. We plan on spitting MooTools More up into individual components, too (again, it's a bigger task). My suggestion is that you continue to distribute your work as you have it now. Add it to the forge as one giant repository that users can download but make it clear that they should probably visit your site for installation and usage details and maybe even to get the files themselves. Aaron On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, jonlb <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking for some guidance.... > > I'm a developer on the JxLib UI library project (http://jxlib.org). We > are interested in making the library available on the forge but are > not to keen on having to separate out each individual component into > it's own repository. Anyone who may be following the project knows > that our next release is a rather massive overhaul and the number of > individual components has grown significantly. To give you an idea of > how large the project currently is we have 100+ javascipt files with > almost as many css files and images. > > After looking at the requirements for inclusion in the forge I think > we wouldn't be able to participate for purely logistical reasons. > > We would really like to get this into the forge so, I'm looking for > some suggestions as to how we may be able to get JxLib included with > the least amount of modifications to our already existing structure > and workflow. > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Jon B. >
