Guys,
This has been added not so long ago, and I am aware that I should
express my perspective on this back then as now it might be too late.
IMHO LiftRules or other Lift parts except the JsArtifacts and maybe
ResourceServer should not even be aware of the underlying JS framework
thus the JQuery name in LiftRules is very unsound to me.
Here is other proposal of keeping things decoupled:
.
We currently have JQueryArtifacts which holds the JQuery
implementation.
We add in the JsArtifacts this:
trait JsArtifacts {
...
def version
}
then
case class JQueryArtifacts1_3_2 extends JQueryArtifacts {
def version = "1.3.2-min"
}
case class JQueryArtifacts1_4_1 extends JQueryArtifacts {
def version = "1.4.1-min"
}
Then to select one or another we use the existent mechanism:
LiftRules.jsArtifacts = JQueryArtifacts1_3_2 // by default and people
can change this easily
then in ResourceServer we can easily make the version selection.
In this way LiftRules has no idea about JQuery, YUI etc .... and it
doesn't need to. it is only about feeding different implementations of
JsArtifact.
Thoughts?
Br's,
Marius
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
