24 Apr
2009
24 Apr
'09
2:25 a.m.
Jerome Velociter wrote:
I don't know, this will create a stronger dependency on the plugin. Are
we 100% sure we want that?
I guess that if a sysadmin decides to remove the js plugins, then he can
also replace these calls with <script> tags, too, so I don't think that
this is a severe problem. using jsfx seems better to me, too.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
Modified: platform/web/trunk/standard/src/main/webapp/templates/javascript.vm
===================================================================
--- platform/web/trunk/standard/src/main/webapp/templates/javascript.vm 2009-04-23
19:39:22 UTC (rev 19002)
+++ platform/web/trunk/standard/src/main/webapp/templates/javascript.vm 2009-04-23
20:06:46 UTC (rev 19003)
@@ -10,6 +10,11 @@
##
## JS Libraries.
##
+$xwiki.jsfx.use('js/scriptaculous/effects.js', true)
+$xwiki.jsfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/modalPopup.js', true)
+$xwiki.ssfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/modalPopup.css', true)
+$xwiki.jsfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/jumpToPage.js', true)
+$xwiki.ssfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/jumpToPage.css', true)
<script type="text/javascript"
src="$xwiki.getSkinFile("js/prototype/prototype.js")"></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="$xwiki.getSkinFile("js/xwiki/xwiki.js",
true)"></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="$xwiki.getSkinFile("js/xwiki/compatibility.js",
true)"></script>
We should decide on which way we want to include our JS/CSS in
templates. I'd say only with (js|ss)fx plugin is ok.