Yes we do have different perspectives. I'm saying "for page X here these are the JS dependencies" whether you seem to say "here is a snippet, and it needs these dependencies"
I'd still prefer my paradigm (not because of my ego) because it'd be easier to manage redundancies, it applies generically for snippets, comet actors etc. without having to induce other type of API. It is maybe coarse grained vs. your proposal that seems to me finner grained. However I'd be happy to see an implementation of any of these proposals. Maybe other people would have better ideas so perhaps Peter and/oryou could dig could make this happen? Br's, Marius On Mar 1, 2:45 pm, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <je...@ingolfs.dk> wrote: > Marius <marius.dan...@gmail.com> writes: > > [...] > > > I'm not sure that doing this per snippet is the right approach. > > Maybe we differ in our thinking then :-) I'm thinking more in a > component oriented approach where I would like to put a widget on a > page. I'll just add the correct snippet tags to my page and don't want > to worry about which js dependencies I need to include before the > snippet works. > > > The reason I'd put it LiftRules is that it CAN use a dependency tree > > per page ... after all, scripts are specified per page. > > Yeah, maybe some flexibility is needed and as usual it seems like a good > idea to have the low level foundations in place first and build the > higher level abstractions on top. If we have the function in LiftRules > it should be possible to what I want by creating a smarter Req => Tree > function. > > /Jeppe -- 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.
