There are a few ways to keep yourself up-to-date with jQuery. You can of course just update the file you already have, which is probably the easiest way.
On my site, I have a universal script file and have created a 'load script' function (rather like jQuery's getScript function) so that I can change which libraries are loaded in one place and have them updated everywhere. (I created this before I started using jQuery.) Or, you can just paste the packed version of jQuery (and any plugins) into a single, universally linked file. The one thing this does not do for you, though, is actually test that all your code works with the new version :) o On Jul 27, 6:11 pm, "Rick Faircloth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What does everyone do to stay updated with the latest jQuery and plug-ins > > for every website? > > Up to this point, I've been putting my jQ in my site folders, but the more > jQ I use > > on sites, the more of a chore it is to go through and update everything with > the > > latest versions. and jQ and its plug-ins changes quickly! > > Is it better to setup a central repository on my server to hold the jQ and > plug-ins? > > It would seem so. > > That leads me to another question. has anyone thought about developing some > > kind of auto-updating function(s) like most software has today for jQ and > the plug-ins? > > Is it possible to use jQ to check online for updated versions and plug-ins > that are in > > use on a particular system, compare the updated versions to what's currently > on the > > server and download newer versions that are deemed stable and ready for > primetime? > > I know this raises some issues with whether or not updates will break > existing code, > > but the current plug-ins for a particular jQ version could be verified by > the plug-in > > user as having been testing for the jQ version being considered for > download. > > If all is not well, then the update doesn't occur. > > I just think we need some kind of automated system to keep everything > up-to-date > > without breaking anything versus having to manually perform updates to jQ, > et al. > > Thoughts? > > Rick
