You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@tapestry.apache.org by "Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2013/11/01 14:02:18 UTC

[jira] [Commented] (TAP5-2196) RequireJs custom path contribution - via Stacks or JavaScriptSupport

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-2196?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13811224#comment-13811224 ] 

Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo commented on TAP5-2196:
-----------------------------------------------------

Hello, Magnum!

I've been studying this issue and the related Tapestry code and my conclusion is that adding something like a JavaScriptSupport..config({...}) would be difficult and error-prone. I thought about the possibility of changing the JavaScript object created by ModuleManager and before it's passed to require.config(). That would be done by the use of callbacks, a RequireJsCallback interface, registered through a method to be added in JavaScriptSupport, so you can change the object that will be passed to require.config() in any way you want dynamically in a per-request way in components, pages, mixins or even services. We could also provide some RequireJsCallback implementations to add paths, for example.

What do you guys think?

Cheers!

> RequireJs custom path contribution - via Stacks or JavaScriptSupport
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TAP5-2196
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-2196
>             Project: Tapestry 5
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: tapestry-core
>    Affects Versions: 5.4
>            Reporter: Magnus Kvalheim
>              Labels: requirejs
>
> Currently I think there is no way to configure requirejs paths.
> Also - the requirejs config is 'global' and all entries included on every page.
> Would be good improvement if there were some more flexibility in config and more contributions was possible.
> --
> As part of 5.4 migration process we have some components that make use of JQueryFileUpload, https://github.com/blueimp/jQuery-File-Upload .
> This library uses the factory approach for defining the modules to work in both AMD and non AMD environments.
> Internally it handles loading of required modules, but work with paths. (And does not try to load from a fixed directory structure).
> So I think I need to specify things like 
> requirejs.config({
>     paths: {
>          'jquery.fileupload': '../library/jquery.fileupload/jquery.fileupload', //path to file
>          'jquery.iframe-transport': '../library/jquery.fileupload/jquery.iframe-transport', //path to file
>          'jquery.ui.widget': '../library/jquery.fileupload/vendor/jquery.ui.widget', //path to file
>     }
> });
> Currently, only option is to configure shims through tapestry's modulemanager, but that's for non-AMD scripts and is likely to cause problems.
> Also the shim config would be global (all pages) - which I'd like to avoid as well.
> In 5.3 I've used a JQueryFileUpload to define all the deps like so..
> public List<Asset> getJavaScriptLibraries() {
> 	List<Asset> ret = new ArrayList<Asset>();
> 	ret.add(assetSource.getContextAsset("jquery-file-upload/7.2.1/js/vendor/jquery.ui.widget.js", null));
> 	ret.add(assetSource.getContextAsset("jquery-file-upload/extra/js/load-image.min.js", null));
> 	ret.add(assetSource.getContextAsset("jquery-file-upload/extra/js/canvas-to-blob.min.js", null));
> 	ret.add(assetSource.getContextAsset("jquery-file-upload/7.2.1/js/jquery.iframe-transport.js", null));
> 	ret.add(assetSource.getContextAsset("jquery-file-upload/7.2.1/js/jquery.fileupload.js", null));
> 	ret.add(assetSource.getContextAsset("jquery-file-upload/7.2.1/js/jquery.fileupload-fp.js", null)); 
> It would be useful it was possible somehow to contribute to requirejs configuration through stacks. 
> That way they could be added to the requirejs config if the stack was used.
> If it was a service (perhaps exposed through JavaScriptSupport) one could also contribute on a page/component level..?
> I have no idea about the implications of this and if it's possible to accomplish, but could potentially help solving some more advanced use cases.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)