[dojo-contributors] Code style change (was Re: Allow multiple dojo versions in a page for 1.1?)

[Shane O'Sullivan]

How does this work with <script> including files?  When I specify the
scopemap from the trunk code, and include some dojox files, an error
is thrown saying that dojox is not defined.  dojox10 is defined
instead.

So, does this only work if dojo10.require() is used?  Does that
automatically replace references in 'dojox' with 'dojox10', or how
does it work?

Thanks

Shane

On 12/01/2008, James Burke <jburke at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
> A 1.1 version can coexist with 0.4+ (as long as there is a
> djConfig.scopeMap). One of the tests demonstrates 0.4 and 1.1
> coexistence:
>
> http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/browser/dojo/trunk/tests/_base/_loader/scope04.html
>
> James
>
> On Jan 12, 2008 12:51 AM, Michael Smith <savoyboy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This looks great. Does this mean that 1.1 will be able to coexist with
> > 0.4.x, 0.9, or 1.0 versions? Or is this only effective for multiple versions
> > that are 1.1+?
> >
> > Thanks for the good work.
> > ~Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Jan 11, 2008 7:36 PM, James Burke <jburke at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I just committed a set of changes that allows multiple versions of
> > > dojo in a page. As a result, there is a new style guide rule (I
> > > updated the guide to reflect this):
> > >
> > > When constructing string IDs or ID prefixes in the code, do not use
> > > "dojo", "dijit" or "dojox" in the names. Because we now allow multiple
> > > versions of dojo in a page, it is important you use _scopeName instead
> > > (dojo._scopeName, dijit._scopeName, dojox._scopeName).
> > >
> > > I tried to change the places where I thought this rule applied. Be
> > > sure to check out the changeset below to see if your favorite module
> > > has changed:
> > > Core: http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/changeset/12008
> > > Dijit: http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/changeset/12010
> > > Dojox: http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/changeset/12011
> > >
> > > There were some things that may be candidates for _scopeName, but I
> > > was not sure. Just calling them out in case you want to review for
> > > yourselves:
> > > - dojox.dtl : some registration going on?
> > > - dojox.wire _wireClasses?
> > > - No dojox flash things were updated, since the .as files do not have
> > > access to the _scopeName property.
> > > - dojox/presentation/_base.js: getSiblingsByType. May be problematic?
> > >
> > > I ran the Core unit tests in all the major browsers and ran the
> > > dojox.data tests. I ran themeTester.html in IE 6. I think everything
> > > is OK, but I could have missed something. Just holler if I did, and
> > > I'll fix it asap.
> > >
> > > If you are curious how to use this functionality, you can see the
> > > source for test files that start with "scope" in this folder:
> > > http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/browser/dojo/trunk/tests/_base/_loader
> > >
> > > Once I clean up some loose ends (really just xdomain debugAtAllCosts
> > > support) then I'll being doing some doc updates.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Dec 30, 2007 9:29 AM, James Burke <jburke at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
> > > > I've been working on a change that would allow running more than one
> > > > version of Dojo in the page:
> > > > http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/ticket/4573
> > > >
> > > > I will likely start applying the change in about a week, but it has
> > > > some coding implications. You may not feel the changes are worth the
> > > > added benefit. If so, please speak up now, and if it seems like we
> > > > generally do not like the tradeoffs, then I will not do the code
> > > > changes.
> > > >
> > > > Benefits:
> > > > ==============
> > > > 1) Allows someone that provides a JS library to use dojo underneath
> > > > the covers, but that version of Dojo would not interfere with another
> > > > version used on the page. It also means that other version on the page
> > > > will not interfere with the version used by the JS library. Example:
> > > > Mapquest could use some of Dojo's gfx code to help with doing map
> > > > drawings, and this code could be used in many different sites which
> > > > may use different versions of Dojo (disclaimer: Mapquest is owned by
> > > > AOL, I work for AOL. I have not talked with the Mapquest team about
> > > > this, so I do not know if they need this capability, I am
> > > > extrapolating).
> > > >
> > > > 2) Might allow easier code migration to 1.x from 0.4.
> > > >
> > > > 3) The code changes will work for modules outside of the blessed dojo
> > > > modules. There is some special consideration in xdomain builds (you
> > > > have to know all the 3rd party module prefixes you are going to use up
> > > > front before you do the xdomain build), but otherwise you can multiple
> > > > versions of your own modules in a page.
> > > >
> > > > Code impact:
> > > > ==============
> > > > 1) Some of the code uses "dojo" or "dijit" for node names or IDs. That
> > > > code would be changed to use dojo._scopeName and dijit._scopeName.
> > > > After this code change, you will need to make sure you use the new
> > > > _scopeName properties when making strings that are based on the module
> > > > name. Note that css class names would not change. I figure it is
> > > > easier for people to wrap the code in a container element and apply a
> > > > unique class/ID on that container to get different styles (similar to
> > > > how we allow for multiple themes in a page).
> > > >
> > > > 2) You do not have to change how you reference dojo, dijit or dojox in
> > > > your code. The code works by enclosing loaded module resources in an
> > > > anonymous function that sets the dojo, dijit, dojox (and your own
> > > > custom prefixes). However, this means that dojo will never support
> > > > defining a loose function in a module and have it bind to the window
> > > > object. For instance defining:
> > > >
> > > > function foo() { /*do something*/ }
> > > >
> > > > in your module file means that it will not be visible as window.foo.
> > > > This limitation is already there for xdomain builds and for IE with
> > > > the normal dojo loader, but this change will now make this limitation
> > > > uniform. I think this is good, since dojo's behavior will always be
> > > > uniform and it encourages proper namespacing of code, but it can cause
> > > > issues for people assuming module files work just like normal files
> > > > attached directly via script elements.
> > > >
> > > > 3) I want to copy the djConfig object inside the dojo object. This
> > > > will allow multiple versions to change the djConfig object with
> > > > minimal effect on other versions that may want different djConfig
> > > > settings. This means in the future instead of referencing djConfig
> > > > directly, you would reference dojo.config or dojo.cfg or something
> > > > like that.
> > > >
> > > > 4) After I do this change you will have to be very careful about doing
> > > > code merges to and from the 1.0 branch (I think trunk is starting to
> > > > drift away from the 1.0 tree though, so you probably should be careful
> > > > anyway).
> > > >
> > > > Example
> > > > =============
> > > > I have an example page working here:
> > > >
> > http://dojotoolkit.org/~jburke/scope/dojo/tests/_base/_loader/scope04.html
> > > >
> > > > One additional thing I want to add to what is working in the test page
> > > > is the ability to do dojo10.require("dojo10.parser"). I still want to
> > > > support  dojo10.require("dojo.parser ") too (it works and loads the
> > > > right version already), but I think being able to specify
> > > > "dojo10.parser" might make it clearer for the developer working with a
> > > > specific scope name.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm using names like scopeMap and scopeName for setting up this
> > > > new capability. Holler if you think these are bad names.
> > > >
> > > > I'll start the code changes in about a week, unless there is feedback
> > > > to the contrary.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dojo-contributors mailing list
> > > dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> > > http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dojo-contributors mailing list
> > dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> > http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>