What should be in Fluid-all.js?
a.cheetham at utoronto.ca
Tue Jan 20 16:02:20 UTC 2009
First, a general point:
Files end up in Fluid-all.js because they are explicitly listed in
build.properties. It is a not-uncommon mistake for a developer who
creates a new file to forget to update build.properties. That said:
> that are not included in Fluid-all:
> not included in Fluid-all like the tinymce and fck editors.
If the samples themselves are not included in Fluid-all.js, then the
JS files they use should not be included, I would think.
> So what are we trying to accomplish with Fluid-all? I think the
> answer is we want it to be really easy for people integrating our
> away they go.
That's my understanding, too.
> They can do that today but not if they want to use rich text inline
> edit. Fair enough since rich text inline edit is in sneak peak mode
> but what about going forward? It would be crazy to include all
> possible rich text editors but do we want to include one?
This is a good question. I'm trying to remember the discussions we had
at the time we put together the rich-text inline edit. If I recall,
the *idea* was that we were delivering an Inline Edit that could have
a rich-text editor plugged in, but not delivering the rich-text
editors. That's why the file is called InlineEditIntegrations instead
of RichTextInlineEdit. But we do need to figure out the correct path
> In essence that's what we are doing with Uploader. We include swf
> but not Gears. Regardless of what we decide we really need to
> document this somewhere.
> I think at the very least, the two files I mentioned above that
> contain Fluid code that supports rich text inline edit should be
> included in Fluid-all. Thoughts?
Still not sure about this...
Anastasia Cheetham a.cheetham at utoronto.ca
Software Designer, Fluid Project http://fluidproject.org
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre / University of Toronto
More information about the fluid-work