(resending, forgot to reply all) That's a larger problem: OpenLayers, the website, and the docs, doesn't talk about its modularity and what you do when when you don't have a component, or how you check to see if you have a component. That docs issue needs to be fixed, not avoided.
Enough with the filesize comparisons to WMS tiles or whatever; OpenLayers is a behemoth compared to other Javascript libraries - it's several times the size of jQuery, Backbone, Leaflet, and whatever else users have tried out, and for reasons that totally don't matter to 90% of users. OpenLayers is 177kb gzipped - that's 6x jQuery. On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Andreas Hocevar <[email protected]>wrote: > I can already smell the questions on the mailing list and elsewhere > from people finding something not working when they go beyond the > "light" use case... > > Still -1. What's so bad about a cacheable script of less than 1MB > gzipped, compared to a single non cacheable set of WMS tiles for a > fullscreen map with several MB? > > Andreas. > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Tom MacWright <[email protected]> wrote: > > There's no need for the current light build to be the one that ships: > it'd > > be simple to expand and specialize it a bit more to align with what's > needed > > by the Leaflet/Google Maps usecase. > > > > Tom > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Andreas Hocevar <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> The light build with the current lite configuration would be useless > >> for most users. As Tom says, many people won't be able to use the > >> python based build tool, and what then happens is much worse than > >> people using a full build: they'll be using the debug loader or the > >> hosted version from openlayers.org. > >> > >> So I'm -1 on shipping a light build. > >> > >> Andreas. > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Tom MacWright <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > Absolutely. If OpenLayers doesn't provide a jQuery-UI like build > creator > >> > (something that I tried to do with OpenLayerer, but that build-tool > >> > refactoring was never accepted), then there should be a light build > >> > distributed by default. The expectations of the user to run the Python > >> > scripts are way too great for the use-case of just downloading and > >> > running > >> > the thing, even if they seems simple for developers. Like, some guy > >> > making > >> > an HTML website on a Windows machine would have to install Python from > >> > scratch: it isn't going to happen. > >> > > >> > Tom > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Bart van den Eijnden > >> > <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> As suggested by Antoine on Twitter, and I agree. Clearly a lot of > >> >> people > >> >> are still using a full build, even if we tell people not to. > >> >> > >> >> So what about only shipping a minimal build for 2.12? > >> >> > >> >> https://twitter.com/#!/bartvdeijnden/status/172328188704333825 > >> >> https://twitter.com/#!/brankgnol/status/172345191670358016 > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> Bart > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Bart van den Eijnden > >> >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > >> >> Expert service straight from the developers. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Dev mailing list > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Dev mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Andreas Hocevar > >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/ > >> Expert service straight from the developers. > > > > > > > > -- > Andreas Hocevar > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/ > Expert service straight from the developers. >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
