On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Shrey Banga wrote: > > >> As for the including the rest of DojoX, since it a significant part of the >> reducing effort. Would it make sense to build a custom js for monitoring, >> remove the rest of DojoX and if the development starts shifting to a real >> need for DojoX to make a decision to bring it back in the future? >> >> I think that makes perfect sense- not only will this do the part in >> reducing the dojo footprint, it'll also be useful as an example to how dojo >> should be used optimally in deployment. Another desirable side-effect would >> be reduced load times in the monitoring application, although currently that >> is not an issue. >> > > I'm starting to think that our server should deliver dojo support that is > targeted to the requirements of the admin console. > > For general dojo support, we could provide an installable dojo plugin > that's equivalent to the /dojo support we currently provide... > Perfect. I am +1. > --kevan > -- Thanks, Shiva
