Does this mean I shouldn't be using version.extensions. at all?
I consider it good practice to use that namespace for plugins'
functionality (public methods anyway).
Thanks Eric for going through the scenarios. The probability is so low
that a plugins would appear twice, and
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:54 PM, FND f...@gmx.net wrote:
why is it good practice for plugins to check if they've already been
loaded? (if version.extensions.) { } at the top of most plugins)
Cargo-culting.
This doesn't actually solve any useful purpose AFAICT. I'm not sure
where it
I have several HTML pages I want to import into a TiddlyWiki and each
references the same external .JS file. Instead of bloating every
tiddler with the same code, is there a more efficient way of having
each tiddler look to the same instance of the code in a single place?
That's what plugins
This FAQ article may help:
http://www.tiddlytools.com/faq.html#FAQ_ScriptsAndPlugins
enjoy
-e
Eric Shulman
TiddlyTools / ELS Design Studios
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
TiddlyWiki group.
To post
This raises a related question for me - why is it good practice for
plugins to check if they've already been loaded? (if
version.extensions.) { } at the top of most plugins). I've never
seen one plugin include the entire source of another plugin, so why is
there a risk a plugin will be loaded
why is it good practice for plugins to check if they've already been
loaded? (if version.extensions.) { } at the top of most plugins)
Cargo-culting.
This doesn't actually solve any useful purpose AFAICT. I'm not sure
where it originates, but I don't include those bits in my plugins
This raises a related question for me - why is it good practice for
plugins to check if they've already been loaded? (if
version.extensions.) { } at the top of most plugins). I've never
seen one plugin include the entire source of another plugin, so why is
there a risk a plugin will be
7 matches
Mail list logo
