[dojo-contributors] Allow multiple dojo versions in a page for 1.1?

[Michael Smith]

I would also echo that there seems to be quite a bit of benefit from the
idea, theoretically. I think it offers a very attractive way to upgrade a
complex application to a newer version of Dojo. In an agile development
world, being able to have two versions of dojo in a page allows the
application to be upgraded in several iterations, each one being
deliverable. While I also agree that it will be a bit slower and inefficient
to load two versions of Dojo, layering the builds as each area of the
application is ported to the new version would help.

It's a great idea, James. I hope it works out. And although I won't be in
the Wednesday meeting, you have my vote.

~Michael Smith

On Jan 2, 2008 11:31 PM, sam foster <potatosculptor at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just in answer to the question as to whether the gain is worth the effort,
> for me at least that's a big yes. Having a backwards and
> future-compatibility plan and mechanism to avoid namespace collisions and
> unintended redefinition is a big hairy issue that I need to deal with - and
> that I dont really have a satisfactory answer for currently. I dont know
> that this will address all of my requirements, but its really encouraging to
> see and I hope it gets proper consideration.
> All the platform/library folks that bundle dojo must have the same issue -
> I'm thinking of things like Struts2, Tapestry, Catalyst etc., where the
> build and bundling has typically happened upstream of the developer. My
> worst-case scenario that I stress test all these strategies against is a
> portal, where different portlets (perhaps from different vendors) each
> provide their own js library - which might include different versions of
> dojo. Granted it would be slow and inefficient, but it should at least work.
>
>
> (/me just notices that wednesday - and presumably the meeting - already
> happened)
>
> Sam
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2008 3:22 PM, James Burke <jburke at dojotoolkit.org > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 2008 1:02 PM, Shane O'Sullivan < shaneosullivan1 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Also, if there is just one installation of Dojo on the page, will it
> > > still be possible to use 'dojo' and not 'dojo10'?  If so, then this
> > > seems like a good idea.  If not, not.
> >
> > The names will stay the same (dojo, dijit, dojox) by default. They
> > only get new names if you define a djConfig.scopeMap (or you have that
> > scope map burned in as part of an optional build step).
> >
> > James
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20080103/54b02db8/attachment.html