Is anyone else using the "The Garber-Irish Implementation" with pjax? The pjax 
container is (obviously) beneath the body. I threw together this patch 
(https://gist.github.com/2600165) to rack-pjax 
(https://github.com/eval/rack-pjax/) to get things working, but it doesn't feel 
like the cleanest approach. Anyone else run into this issue?

-n

On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:13 AM, James Miller wrote:

> Yeah I agree completely. I've just used multiple bundles in that case 
> (multiple manifest files in the asset pipeline). That way the static stuff 
> can still be served from Nginx or the CDN, rather than the app. Very 
> interested to hear other creative approaches - the method that Rafael/Peter 
> brought up totally changed and improved the way I organize static assets.
> 
> James
> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Marc Leglise wrote:
> 
>> And, I should mention, in my mind the ideal JS structure is able to 
>> accomodate both cases.  Download the code for most of your pages as part of 
>> the normal bundle, only executing the correct page-specific calls.  Then on 
>> special pages, download the extra bits that were too big to reasonably throw 
>> into the sitewide bundle.
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Marc Leglise <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> James, that approach works for many cases, but not all the time.  Say you 
>>> have one action in particular that is the only page that needs to load a 
>>> big dependency library?  Especially if you're targeting mobile, with 
>>> reduced caching for larger files, there are cases where you want to have a 
>>> few pieces that only load on the appropriate pages.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:27 AM, James Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> What's wrong with loading all JS on every page? That was the main point of 
>>>> the mailing list discussion -- one minified, gzipped file that is fetched 
>>>> once by the browser but only inits items relevant to the current page.     
>>>>             
>>>> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Marc Leglise wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Raf, if you want to handle asset pipeline in general, I could talk about 
>>>>> a pattern we developed to manage page-specific (controller and action 
>>>>> specific) JS triggers, without loading ALL the JS on every page.  Anyone 
>>>>> interested in that for this week, or save it for next month?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Marc
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Patrick Crowley <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Let's do the asset pipeline. That's still tripping up a lot of people.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- Patrick
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2012, at 9:34 am, Ylan Segal wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > On Apr 3, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Rafael Cardoso wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Hey, I can do the asset pipeline and twitter bootstrap. Used both. 
>>>>>> >> Also kaminari with bootstrap pagination. Both of those are short 
>>>>>> >> topics.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I would be interested in that... I am looking into all of those for 
>>>>>> > new project.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > Ylan
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > SD Ruby mailing list
>>>>>> > [email protected]
>>>>>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> SD Ruby mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> SD Ruby mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> SD Ruby mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> SD Ruby mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
> 
> 
> -- 
> SD Ruby mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby

-- 
SD Ruby mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby

Reply via email to