You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> on 2007/07/30 08:27:53 UTC
Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz
As a side note, it would be useful to specify the release number of
these libraries: I don't see it in the commit log, however I'd prefer to
add it as a suffix to the folder name (e.g. prototypejs-1.0)
Then we have to add these libraries to the LICENSE file as well.
Jacopo
David E Jones wrote:
>
> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
> pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at
> this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>
> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and
> DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will
> need to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we
> might even want to keep both... I don't know though...
>
> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
>
> -David
>
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months
>> back?
>> Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 30/07/07, apatel@apache.org <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: apatel
>>> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
>>> New Revision: 560854
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
>>> Log:
>>> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
>>>
>>> Added:
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
>>>
>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz
Posted by Anil K Patel <an...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Jacopo,
Lets say we have a application deployed in production and we take update
from ofbiz trunk. If somebody did not have automatic tests, there are
chances that we may not notice this change in folder name and break some
pages.
Regards
Anil Patel
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Anil,
>
> please see my comments inline:
>
> Anil K Patel wrote:
>>
>> Like following line from OrderScreens.xml in ecommerce line number
>> 441 will change to something like
>> <set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
>> value="/images/dojo/dojo1.4.js" global="true"/>
>>
>
> I see what you mean. However, my suggestion would be to rename the
> folder and not each and every file in it, for example:
>
> <set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
> value="/images/dojo-1.5/dojo.js" global="true"/>
>
> Of course this will cause some overhead (as you describe) when we have
> to update dojo to 1.6, but maybe it is acceptable.
> What other think about this?
>
> Jacopo
Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>.
Anil,
please see my comments inline:
Anil K Patel wrote:
>
> Like following line from OrderScreens.xml in ecommerce line number 441
> will change to something like
> <set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
> value="/images/dojo/dojo1.4.js" global="true"/>
>
I see what you mean. However, my suggestion would be to rename the
folder and not each and every file in it, for example:
<set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
value="/images/dojo-1.5/dojo.js" global="true"/>
Of course this will cause some overhead (as you describe) when we have
to update dojo to 1.6, but maybe it is acceptable.
What other think about this?
Jacopo
Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz
Posted by Anil K Patel <an...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
David, Jacopo
I am not sure if its ok to do like this, because if we renamed those
files and added reference to them in screens, later when we update the
version we'll have to update all those screens.
Like following line from OrderScreens.xml in ecommerce line number 441
will change to something like
<set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
value="/images/dojo/dojo1.4.js" global="true"/>
Now if we upgrade to dojo1.5.js then we'll have to modify it to
<set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
value="/images/dojo/dojo1.5.js" global="true"/>
NOTE: I am using dojo just as an example. It could be any javascript file.
All these JavaScript lib files have version number written in the
beginning. Do you think that may be enough.
Regards
Anil Patel
David E Jones wrote:
>
> They're in the LICENSE file (just a minute ago).
>
> I totally agree with the version number in the filenames... could you
> take care of that Anil and send me a patch for the LICENSE file too?
>
> Thanks,
> -David
>
>
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> As a side note, it would be useful to specify the release number of
>> these libraries: I don't see it in the commit log, however I'd prefer
>> to add it as a suffix to the folder name (e.g. prototypejs-1.0)
>>
>> Then we have to add these libraries to the LICENSE file as well.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for
>>> special pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet,
>>> so I'd say at this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>>>
>>> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype
>>> and DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in
>>> that will need to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of
>>> these, but we might even want to keep both... I don't know though...
>>>
>>> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of
>>>> months back?
>>>> Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 30/07/07, apatel@apache.org <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Author: apatel
>>>>> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
>>>>> New Revision: 560854
>>>>>
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Added:
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
They're in the LICENSE file (just a minute ago).
I totally agree with the version number in the filenames... could you take care of that Anil and send me a patch for the LICENSE file too?
Thanks,
-David
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> As a side note, it would be useful to specify the release number of
> these libraries: I don't see it in the commit log, however I'd prefer to
> add it as a suffix to the folder name (e.g. prototypejs-1.0)
>
> Then we have to add these libraries to the LICENSE file as well.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
>> pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say
>> at this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>>
>> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype
>> and DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that
>> will need to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but
>> we might even want to keep both... I don't know though...
>>
>> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months
>>> back?
>>> Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 30/07/07, apatel@apache.org <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Author: apatel
>>>> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
>>>> New Revision: 560854
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
>>>> Log:
>>>> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
>>>>
>>>> Added:
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
>>>>
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>