OK, so it seems like making templates depend on feature is the way to go for now (I actually don't think there are dependencies, and if there are they are very minor).
Is there a document somwhere on the format of feature.xml file? On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 I assume this is a bug and should be fixed. > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:56, Kevin Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Lev Epshteyn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Guys, is there a pre-set order of including required features into apps > >> rendered by Shindig? > >> > >> I'm running into the following problem: > >> > >> The feature I'm working on, "opensocia-templates", is trying to add > >> functionality to the "opensocial" namespace: > >> > >> var opensocial = window.opensocial || {}; > >> opensocial.templates = {}; > >> > >> However, the core opensocial feature ("opensocial-0.8") seems to > override > >> the "opensocial" namespace unconditionally: > >> > >> var opensocial = {}; > >> > >> This seems to me to be largely correct (since this is the core > opensocial > >> library), but the problem is that Shindig includes this AFTER the > template > >> feature JS, regardless of the order in which the features are > <require>d. > >> The effect is that the core library always destroys the opensocial > >> namespace > >> object. > >> > >> Is there a way to make "opensocial-0.x" the first opensocial feature to > be > >> inlined? > > > > > > Unless opensocial-templates can ever be used without opensocial-0.x, it > > needs an explicit dependency on it. > > > > The opensocial feature shouldn't be clobbering the namespace though. Like > > everything in the gadgets namespace, the idiom should be: > > > > var opensocial = opensocial || {}; > > >
