18 Jun
2012
18 Jun
'12
6:02 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
On 06/18/2012 03:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
That's for on demand skin extensions but Vincent was talking about
installing a full filesystem skin or adding more things in resources/
folder.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
Actually it is possible, jsrx offers files from inside jars.
On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
No plan right now, concentrating on other things. The main issue is
that it's not that easy to do something which is working all the time
since you can't write in a WAR for example and even in a expended WAR
you don't really have any official API allowing to do that. Hi devs,
Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery
plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions
developers to integrate such scripts ?
Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many
extensions
bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page
loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer
experience.
An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with a JSX)
that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
What do you think ?
I agree about the need. My preference would go to a jquery extension that
you would install explicitly or you would simply install some extension that
depends on jquery (for example my latest fullcalendar extension would have
an extension dependency on jquery).
However ATM we're not able to create extensions that contribute resources
on the file system (@thomas: do you have a plan to make this possible? -
We've several use cases where it would be nice to have it: skins for example
too). >
> So +1 to bundle it in XWiki platform ATM with the goal of making it an
> extension as soon as we can have that.
>
> BTW could someone tell me the cons of using a JSX to bundle JQuery vs
> filesystem?
> The JSX can be cached with "long" so in term of performance is should be
> comparable no?
> The "cache" is a local client browser cache right? (not a server-side
> cache)
>
> So if we don't have much difference in performance/memory I'd be +1 to
> bundle it as an on-demand JSX.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs