[dojo-contributors] Dojo 1.7 Goals: has() and granular dependency lists

ben hockey neonstalwart at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 12:45:18 EDT 2011

the ticket claims that using has like you've done is better for 
compression but can you point to an example or explain why it compresses 
better?  i haven't been closely following the thread about using closure 
with dojo 1.6 - maybe it was somewhere in there?

also, wrt to the top level modules, i like this idea especially if the 
top level module does not declare a dependency on the dojo namespace.  
that would happen via dojo/_base/foo only.  then those top level modules 
are extremely portable without any unnecessary dependencies.  i would 
think that these top level modules should also then be the ones 
specified when we become more precise with our dependencies.


On 3/14/2011 12:06 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
> On 3/11/2011 8:10 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
>> There are a couple of additional overarching goals that I would like 
>> to see pursued in 1.7. First, we should start using the has() pattern 
>> for feature detection branching in our code. Here is the ticket for 
>> (and explaining) this enhancement:
>> http://bugs.dojotoolkit.org/ticket/12431
> Put together a patch for dojo/_base/array.js as an example upgrade to 
> has().
> http://bugs.dojotoolkit.org/ticket/12431
> Let me know if you have any feedback before I go wild and start 
> committing this stuff ;).
> Kris
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20110314/1c6ed4cb/attachment.htm 

More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list