I completely agree with you Drew, I was asking for a framework portlet where it would be silly to not just use the uPotal loaded JS libraries. I'm not going to worry about breaking external portlets that get pulled in. External portlets should be loading their own JS dependencies to avoid portal-specific version dependencies.
-Eric On 06/10/2013 11:59 AM, Drew Wills wrote: > Eric, Matt, et al., > > I just want to throw in $.02 on this topic... > > I think the practice of worrying about what portlets might or might > not do with JS provided by the portal is unsustainable. I think it > will tie us in knots and prevent us from doing what we need to and > from moving forward. I think, if we start to worry about it, it will > become the same issue we used to have with IChannels: we don't know > what APIs are in use "in the wild," so we become fearful to touch > anything. > > IMHO portlets are 100% responsible for their own JS. Every portlet > should be developed such that it is prepared to load every line of JS > it may need on it's own. As a means of improving performance, > however, portlets _may_ provide a _configurable option_ to piggyback > on one or more portal JS libs... but anyone wishing to use this > strategy is obligated to test it thoroughly (1) as they develop the > portlet, and (2) _any time they upgrade the portal sources_. > > If the portal changes what it's using, and that's no longer compatible > with what a portlet is using, it's the responsibility of the _portlet_ > to disable the piggyback feature until the portlet can be enhanced to > work with the new version. > > I think this is a sensible approach for these issues. > > drew > > > On 06/10/2013 09:26 AM, Matt Polizzotti wrote: >> Eric, >> >> Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. I don't believe the core >> framework is using backbone, but some portlets are using it. For >> instance, the News Reader Portlet is using Backbone to render its >> views. Off the top of my head, I am not sure which version the >> portlet is using but it may be looking toward the portal first to see >> if the backbone library exists. This would be the only concern that I >> can think of in terms of upgrading. >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Dalquist" <[email protected]> >> To: "Matt Polizzotti" <[email protected]>, "uportal-dev" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 9:17:45 AM >> Subject: Backbone version in uPortal 4.0 >> >> I see that uPortal 4.0 is pulling in backbone 0.9.2 but I don't see any >> where that we are actually using it in the core framework. Do you see >> any problems with my upgrading to the latest version of backbone? >> >> -Eric >> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
