On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 09:35:50PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> * dojo/dijit - F/OSS, packaged
>
Currently for any javascript library you are allowed to bundle. In the
future this may not be the case so you may have a lot of work to do to
maintain this application in the future. Note that no one has currently
stepped forward to work on the JavaScript Guidelines in the several years
since I stopped looking at it, so that "future" day may be a long time in
coming.

Here's the draft that I wrote several years ago:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaScript_libraries_packaging_guideline_draft

Note that I'm unhappy with it. After working on web apps for a while
I think it would be better to model the guidelines after the static library
guidelines than dynamic libraries. that would mean that we'd package the
javascript libraries in their own packages. Then, as part of building the
web application packages, you would BuildRequire the javascript library and
copy the javascript code into the application package. You, as a packager,
would still have the burden of deciding whether to port applications to
newer versions of a library as they came out (if upstream wasn't proactive
about this) or creating and maintaining a compat- package with the old
version of the javascript library for you to build against. But this would
help with the questions of how to specify where a javascript library was
located in the url hierarchy, prevent breakage if a javascript library was
upgraded incompatibly in the middle of a release, etc.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:49:09AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 19:35 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > Dne 31.8.2011 19:31, Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):
> > > they all came from the same version of upstream jquery. And delivering
> > > just one large jquery that can be used is not going to fit what either
> > > upstreams, web developers OR their users want or need.
> >
> > I still haven't got the reason why jQuery cannot be “compiled� from the
> > source as any other source code? Why do you still talk about large
> > monstrosities? Nobody requires that.
>
> often web apps only use one or two functions ripped out of a much larger
> 'library' - all of those packages which have bits of jquery in them are
> unlikely to have *all* of jquery in them, and they probably don't have
> the same little chunks.
>
> I think this applies less to prototypejs, though: it's a single file,
> and when I checked quickly, all the packages I looked at seemed to have
> more or less the same version of it. I can do a more careful evaluation
> if I get a bit of time, though, and see how much variance there really
> is in the prototype.js files in all those packages.
>
> jquery, at least, claims a very strong security history, with only one
> fairly minor vulnerability. prototype.js has had at least one
> significant vuln, as that bug link I put in my original mail shows.
>
Hmmm...I'm not so sure about the assertion that people are ripping apart
jquery in specific hold up. Does someone have numbers? I'm quite willing
to bet that of the copies of jquery on Fedora, most of them are not a subset
of jquery's core because most of them are not going to be used in web
applications. Someone mentioned doxygen earlier and python-sphinx generated
docs also follows this.

(I notice that python-sphinx and the docs generated using it are using
a minified version of jquery :-( Since we don't have a jsmin'er in Fedora
atm, that means jquery in all these packages is not being created from
source :-( )

For actual web apps, I'm also not sure that we'll find that the javascript
has been amputated. Most of the js libraries are 1) fairly interconnected
in terms of the functions they use to provide the functionality you use, 2)
are intentionally kept to some sort of "core" size 3) are shipped in
a minified form as well as having easier to work on source 4) using CDN's
are becoming much more prevalent.

Real numbers before bald assertions please :-)

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 15:52, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Real numbers before bald assertions please :-)

Sorry I thought this was devel@lists.fedoraproject.org where fact was
not needed and very much disdained

I realized I have jumped onto the hype train of javascript programming
where supposedly it is best practice to "never ship a full JS when you
only need X". So I take back my assertions.


--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 14:52 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> Real numbers before bald assertions please :-)

I resign!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel