exist-development

[Exist-development] Using JavaScript Libraries

[Thomas W. <tho...@gm...>]

It seams we are going to use more and more JavaScript  libraries and I
would like to propose a way to organise the code that has been used in
many places and is proven as a good practise.

There are two main challenges:

1. Libraries do change and evolve frequently and in general the code
that worked before, with the next version may not work at all.
2. When a lot of people are contributing to a project, there is a
strong believe that whatever is used in one application (or page) will
be definitely used by many applications (or pages) later and as a
result a lot of library code are places in a generic directory with
the intention to be used later. In our case 'scripts' directory.

This type of problems are very ofter when jQuery + jQuery plugins (my
favorite JS library) are used. Some of the plugins require jQuery
version 1.3, some other 1.2 and on the top of that every plugin have
its own versions are not necessarily compatible with each other.

My proposal is:
1. Keep Javascript libraries in a subdirectory for the application
until other application uses it. This way every application can have
matching versions.Another advantage is - the application is self
contained and by deleting / coping the directory we can easily
inslall/uninslatll an application. I do believe this is in the most
cases the simplest and easiest way.
2. If we really have to share JavaScript libraries (more then one
application uses it), then the libraries should be located in
directories that have version number of the library is part of the
directory name.
3. When  jQuery plugins (or other small libraries that depend on main
libraries) are used, then the name of the file should contain the
version number.
4. The minimised version of every JS file will have '.min.js' suffix.


In a long run the best solution will be to have a Static Resources
Manger module that receives the name and the version of a file and
returns a relative or an absolute URL.

I hope this will help.
Thomas





------

Thomas White

Mobile:+44 7711 922 966
Skype: thomaswhite
gTalk: thomas.0007
Linked-In:http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaswhite0007
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thomas.0007

Re: [Exist-development] Using JavaScript Libraries

[Adam R. <ad...@ex...>]

Can we standardise on one implementation and version?

2010/1/25 Thomas White <tho...@gm...>:
> It seams we are going to use more and more JavaScript  libraries and I
> would like to propose a way to organise the code that has been used in
> many places and is proven as a good practise.
>
> There are two main challenges:
>
> 1. Libraries do change and evolve frequently and in general the code
> that worked before, with the next version may not work at all.
> 2. When a lot of people are contributing to a project, there is a
> strong believe that whatever is used in one application (or page) will
> be definitely used by many applications (or pages) later and as a
> result a lot of library code are places in a generic directory with
> the intention to be used later. In our case 'scripts' directory.
>
> This type of problems are very ofter when jQuery + jQuery plugins (my
> favorite JS library) are used. Some of the plugins require jQuery
> version 1.3, some other 1.2 and on the top of that every plugin have
> its own versions are not necessarily compatible with each other.
>
> My proposal is:
> 1. Keep Javascript libraries in a subdirectory for the application
> until other application uses it. This way every application can have
> matching versions.Another advantage is - the application is self
> contained and by deleting / coping the directory we can easily
> inslall/uninslatll an application. I do believe this is in the most
> cases the simplest and easiest way.
> 2. If we really have to share JavaScript libraries (more then one
> application uses it), then the libraries should be located in
> directories that have version number of the library is part of the
> directory name.
> 3. When  jQuery plugins (or other small libraries that depend on main
> libraries) are used, then the name of the file should contain the
> version number.
> 4. The minimised version of every JS file will have '.min.js' suffix.
>
>
> In a long run the best solution will be to have a Static Resources
> Manger module that receives the name and the version of a file and
> returns a relative or an absolute URL.
>
> I hope this will help.
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> ------
>
> Thomas White
>
> Mobile:+44 7711 922 966
> Skype: thomaswhite
> gTalk: thomas.0007
> Linked-In:http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaswhite0007
> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thomas.0007
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
> world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference
> attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through
> interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Exist-development mailing list
> Exi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/exist-development
>



-- 
Adam Retter

eXist Developer
{ United Kingdom }
ad...@ex...
irc://irc.freenode.net/existdb

Re: [Exist-development] Using JavaScript Libraries

[Dannes W. <di...@ex...>]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Adam Retter <ad...@ex...> wrote:

> Can we standardise on one implementation and version?
>
>
+1 for me.


In the context of exist, that is, what is deployed by the exist
installer/war file, just one version of a library should be deployed.
Applications can bring it's own versions, for sure, and we can discuss about
direcotiy structures, but let's keep exist-db simple... and small :-)

D.

-- 
eXist-db Native XML Database - http://exist-db.org
Join us on linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=35624

Re: [Exist-development] Using JavaScript Libraries

[Thomas W. <tho...@gm...>]

Yes we can keep only one version per library but ir is still good idea
to have the version included in the file name. Both jQuery library and
jQuery plugins file's names already follow this practice.

About the the single implementation - it is like asking Nikon users to
use Canon :-).  jQuery and Yahoo and many other JS libraries will have
their followers for many good reasons. jQuery is 118kb and 56kb
minfielded, Yahoo JS  is about 1Mb. These file sizes are much smaller
then most of the other files in the installation. I do not think sizes
of the JS files will be ever an issue.

Thomas



------

Thomas White

Mobile:+44 7711 922 966
Skype: thomaswhite
gTalk: thomas.0007
Linked-In:http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaswhite0007
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thomas.0007




2010/1/25 Dannes Wessels <di...@ex...>:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Adam Retter <ad...@ex...> wrote:
>>
>> Can we standardise on one implementation and version?
>>
>
> +1 for me.
>
>
> In the context of exist, that is, what is deployed by the exist
> installer/war file, just one version of a library should be deployed.
> Applications can bring it's own versions, for sure, and we can discuss about
> direcotiy structures, but let's keep exist-db simple... and small :-)
>
> D.
>
> --
> eXist-db Native XML Database - http://exist-db.org
> Join us on linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=35624
>

Re: [Exist-development] Using JavaScript Libraries

[Dmitriy S. <sha...@gm...>]

I agree with Thomas. It's not a question "how many", it's - "how".

We need "standard" pluggable mechanism for web applications.

-- 
Cheers,

Dmitriy Shabanov

PS I working under proposal, but I do need first order functions ...

On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 14:10 +0000, Thomas White wrote:
> Yes we can keep only one version per library but ir is still good idea
> to have the version included in the file name. Both jQuery library and
> jQuery plugins file's names already follow this practice.
> 
> About the the single implementation - it is like asking Nikon users to
> use Canon :-).  jQuery and Yahoo and many other JS libraries will have
> their followers for many good reasons. jQuery is 118kb and 56kb
> minfielded, Yahoo JS  is about 1Mb. These file sizes are much smaller
> then most of the other files in the installation. I do not think sizes
> of the JS files will be ever an issue.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> ------
> 
> Thomas White
> 
> Mobile:+44 7711 922 966
> Skype: thomaswhite
> gTalk: thomas.0007
> Linked-In:http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaswhite0007
> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thomas.0007
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010/1/25 Dannes Wessels <di...@ex...>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Adam Retter <ad...@ex...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Can we standardise on one implementation and version?
> >>
> >
> > +1 for me.
> >
> >
> > In the context of exist, that is, what is deployed by the exist
> > installer/war file, just one version of a library should be deployed.
> > Applications can bring it's own versions, for sure, and we can discuss about
> > direcotiy structures, but let's keep exist-db simple... and small :-)
> >
> > D.
> >
> > --
> > eXist-db Native XML Database - http://exist-db.org
> > Join us on linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=35624
> >
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
> world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference
> attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through
> interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Exist-development mailing list
> Exi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/exist-development