On 2/11/2012 4:59 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:34:43 -0200, Paul Stanton <p...@mapshed.com.au>
wrote:
On 1/11/2012 9:37 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:10:16 -0200, Paul Stanton
<p...@mapshed.com.au> wrote:
I've had to do some pretty in-depth debugging and patching of
tapestry's javascript in the past (particularly around zones) and
at least I can understand the source code because it is a familiar
language... Replacing the source-code with an entirely new
language, which is probably familiar for < 2% of tapestry sounds
like a bit of a speedbump to me.. especially if - in order to
create a monkey-patch of sorts, it will need to be written and
integrated via Coffee?
I don't think so. Just look at the generated JavaScript files.
CoffeeScript is *not* understood by browsers, so it's compiled into
JavaScript before being served.
But then to 'monkey patch' something (i wish i never had to of
course) i'll most likely have to figure out how to alter the source
code of the compiled javascript, ie coffeescript.
No, you will still monkey-patch JavaScript, because CoffeeScript is
not interpreted by browsers. You can't monkey-patch something in a
language which is compiled (CoffeeScript). CoffeeScript is compiled
into JavaScript. CoffeeScript isn't interpreted directly: it is first
compiled into JavaScript and run. From the browser point of view,
it'll never see CoffeeScript.
ok, our usage of the term 'monkey-patch' is where the misunderstanding
is. I mean, patch. not monkey-patch, in your definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
