So I worked on this a pit last night and had some progress and then
realised we need a design decision. Current frameworks seem to have
their own css which means we probably should not just limit ourselved
to setting the javascript framework.

Basically what i am suggesting is that rathere than having the (define-
javascript-backend NAME ROOT FILES) as mentioned in the docs we would
have (define-client-backend NAME :js-root JROOT :js-files JFILES :css-
root CROOT :css-files CFILES). The definition of paths will follow
that of the doc.

I think this would give us a better step for the future, but I want to
make sure it is inline with what we want to be added to the weblocks
main branch so what do you think?

On Jul 1, 10:04 pm, "Leslie P. Polzer" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 11:59:06AM -0700, Mackram wrote:
>
> > Yes i like the idea of abstraction and it makes sense that way but I
> > was thinking more along the following lines:
> > weblocks.js:
> >    function applyEffect(type, targetEl) {}
>
> > weblocks-jquery.js:
> >    window.applyEffect = function(type,targetEL){....} /* jquery impl
> > */
>
> > weblocks-prototype.js
> >     window.applyEffect = function(type,targetEL){....} /* prototype/
> > scriptaculous impl */
>
> > That way the lisp code will only add the required implementation
> > rather then all of them and hence make the js code smaller. Also it
> > would probably make debugging easy.
>
> > What do you think?
>
> Yes, that was my intention above, I just left out the file names for
> brevity.
>
> However I think that every backend should have a separate
> directory to make it possible to use multiple files without
> cluttering one top-level directory.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"weblocks" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to