Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Jerome Velociter wrote:
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.
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.
Also, with jsfx is the order in which the resulting script tags are written down deterministic ? Is it First In First Out ? If not then it's probably too dangerous.