On Jun 6, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Jason Warner wrote:
Would this let us remove Dojo 0.4.3 from the server or would we keep
it there for users who might still be using it? If so, how long are
we going to do that for? My vote would be to yank it out after
we're no longer dependent on it, but I'm not sure what the community
at large would think of that. Regardless, I like your idea, Joe.
IMO, we would drop 0.4.3. I don't think we maintained for backward
compatibility reasons, more because we didn't want to update the admin
console code, at that point in time.
I think it would be good to upgrade to 1.1.1. I also assume it would
replace the current 1.0.2 version? Perhaps we should consider encoding
the dojo version in the dojo path name.
I'd prefer to see this work broken down into reasonable chunks (where
possible), so that we can track progress (and others can participate).
First add /dojo-1.1.1 and start incrementally moving code over to use
new dojo. I don't know the internals of the admin console. So, not
sure how well that work breaks down into manageable chunks.
--kevan
+1
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Joseph Leong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've been tossing the idea around in my head of taking the
initiative to upgrade the current items written in Dojo to 1.1.1, I
know we still have some Dojo 0.4.3, which isn't supported anymore,
in use and there has been vast improvements with their new Dijit
package for widgets among many other items. Also, with some
recently reported JIRAs about accessibility compatibility being an
issue in these Dojo components we can make use of the a11y available
in it. Overall, i also think we might also benefit a cleaner setup
from streamlining our versions in terms of future development and
maintenance as well.
Although I haven't looked in complete detail in each of the AG Dojo
pieces, i know that the 0.4.3 transition to 1.1.1 will take some
work because the widget system has been separated out to it's own
pieces (diji) and so simple work arounds will not do. That is, this
will be a big block change rather than an incremental one.
Does anyone have any thoughts - one way or the other on this
undertaking?
Thanks!
Joseph Leong
--
~Jason Warner
