[dojo-contributors] "core dojo", packaging, and the build system
paul at idontsmoke.co.uk
Wed Apr 5 13:19:02 EDT 2006
On 5 Apr 2006, at 05:51, Alex Russell wrote:
> [...] users could include things in their pages like:
> should they want to manually include these modules or do it across
> We now have to figure out:
> 1.) do we want to make builds that include things structured
> like this?
I am very much in favour of this. When I start on a project the
first stage is usually rapid prototyping and Dojo very much gets in
the way of my process. I'd like to be able to include the Dojo bits
that I need and get on with the task at hand, at the moment Dojo
demands my attention, the package system stands in my way.
Now I imagine this is a different scenario for widget authors, where
I guess the package system can start to become a blessing as a myriad
of files are required, or such is my impression.
> 2.) if so, what would the broad "rollup" files be, and what
> would they include?
So I think a list of end points would need to be defined, such as;
event, io, dnd, date, html (css, dom)... ad nauseam, and then the
bare minimum for supporting these modules would comprise the base
dojo.js, presumably bootstrap and some of lang at least.
I also like the idea of spawning the dependancy system into it's own
file, if this is feasible. This would then allow us to provide a
dependancy system which can be picked up by other projects which I
count as a win.
> 3.) how would we communicate to users how to use these build
> files in conjunction with the package system? or would it be a "non-
> package system" build?
I guess the blessing I see is that this the only road block is that
we clean up dependancies to make libraries stand alone, the package
system is one and the same. If the package API is included these
files will continue to have dojo.require and dojo.provide signatures
and so everything will Just Work.
More information about the dojo-contributors