Dojo 1.1.1 (was Dojo Bundles)

["Craig L. Ching" <cc...@mqsoftware.com>]

Hi Lars,

We resolved the issue this morning, so no need to look into anything ;-)
The fix was pretty trivial.

One thing I would like to point out, though, dojo recently released
1.1.1, might consider upgrading to that.

Cheers,
Craig 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Trieloff [mailto:lars@trieloff.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:23 PM
> To: sling-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Dojo Bundles
> 
> Alex is right. It is a symptom of allowing me to write code ;-)
> 
> I will have a deeper look into this issue tomorrow, as I need 
> some time to catch up with latest development.
> 
> Lars
> 
> On Jun 2, 2008, at 20:20 , Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Craig L. Ching 
> <cc...@mqsoftware.com> 
> > wrote:
> >>> Yes, and they are sign of a quick dojo hack ;-)
> >>>
> >> Quick?  No, dojo has been like that forever.  Hack?  Maybe.
> >
> > I meant the missing dojo.require should have been in the (custom) 
> > code. Dojo's require system is great!
> >
> >> Anyway, don't mean to be argumentative, but I actually really like 
> >> dojo's require system.  Once you get used to it, it's not so bad 
> >> tracking down these sorts of problems.  Indeed, once you 
> understand 
> >> it, it rarely comes up because you code against having 
> these sorts of 
> >> problems by nature.
> >
> > I like the require system, too, since it allows for different 
> > deployments of the library code: as single, original js files for 
> > debugging, as bundles for sub-modules including several js files in 
> > one and as a big all-in-one package of everything you need for your 
> > page. That is really helpful in a world of > 10.000 lines of 
> > client-side javascript...
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > --
> > Alexander Klimetschek
> > alexander.klimetschek@day.com
> 
> 

Re: Dojo 1.1.1 (was Dojo Bundles)

[Lars Trieloff <la...@trieloff.net>]

Good point, I will create an issue+patch.

On Jun 3, 2008, at 23:42 , Craig L. Ching wrote:

> Hi Lars,
>
> We resolved the issue this morning, so no need to look into  
> anything ;-)
> The fix was pretty trivial.
>
> One thing I would like to point out, though, dojo recently released
> 1.1.1, might consider upgrading to that.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lars Trieloff [mailto:lars@trieloff.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:23 PM
>> To: sling-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Dojo Bundles
>>
>> Alex is right. It is a symptom of allowing me to write code ;-)
>>
>> I will have a deeper look into this issue tomorrow, as I need
>> some time to catch up with latest development.
>>
>> Lars
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2008, at 20:20 , Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Craig L. Ching
>> <cc...@mqsoftware.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, and they are sign of a quick dojo hack ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Quick?  No, dojo has been like that forever.  Hack?  Maybe.
>>>
>>> I meant the missing dojo.require should have been in the (custom)
>>> code. Dojo's require system is great!
>>>
>>>> Anyway, don't mean to be argumentative, but I actually really like
>>>> dojo's require system.  Once you get used to it, it's not so bad
>>>> tracking down these sorts of problems.  Indeed, once you
>> understand
>>>> it, it rarely comes up because you code against having
>> these sorts of
>>>> problems by nature.
>>>
>>> I like the require system, too, since it allows for different
>>> deployments of the library code: as single, original js files for
>>> debugging, as bundles for sub-modules including several js files in
>>> one and as a big all-in-one package of everything you need for your
>>> page. That is really helpful in a world of > 10.000 lines of
>>> client-side javascript...
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alexander Klimetschek
>>> alexander.klimetschek@day.com
>>
>>