[dojo-contributors] Splitting projects between dojo and dojox
ttrenka at gmail.com
Fri Jun 1 12:40:10 EDT 2007
We considered this and I think the end decision is that we aren't going to
allow that at all. But I'm open to a very convincing argument to the
Of course, whether or not other project leads are open is a completely
different story :)
On 6/1/07, peter e higgins <dante at inpdx.net> wrote:
> On Friday 01 June 2007 10:30, Jon Sykes wrote:
> > Pro's and con's time.
> I like the idea of keeping the namespace clean and consistant, but the
> that one could "dojo.require("dojox.additions.something"); that would make
> something in the core dojo library more robust is a good one. put the
> in dojox, but when you require it, it over-rides or appens things in dojo
> core ... eg: dojo.style dojo.require('dojox.style.addons') and dojo.styleand
> dojo.getStyle and setStyle all now exist ... bad example, but you get the
> point, no?
> still keeps the core code small, and if you _want_ these extra features
> whatnot, you don't have to differentiate between dojo.style and
> dojo.style just got enchanced instead ...
> my 0.02$US ...
> Peter Higgins
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dojo-contributors