Problem with (ant build of?) InfusionAll.js (visible with the new ProgressiveEnhancement file)

[Colin Clark]

Just so that everyone on the list is the in loop, this issue was caused by two issues:

1. The implementation of the Flash feature check in ProgressiveEnhancement.js should have checked for the presence of swfobject before trying to invoke its methods.

2. ProgressiveEnhancement.js should have been moved into its own module instead of being included in the core framework module, so that components and users can choose to include or omit it in the correct order as needed.

The fix is documented here:

http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3892

Anastasia created a patch on Friday, and I committed a tweaked version of it on Saturday. We should be good to go on this one.

Colin


On 2010-12-10, at 1:42 PM, Justin Obara wrote:

> I could be wrong, but I think before the Progressive enhancement wasn't included in the infusionall.js file. Maybe this should still be the case.
> 
> - Justin
> On 2010-12-10, at 1:29 PM, Cheetham, Anastasia wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I've discovered what seems to be a problem with our assembled InfusionAll.js file. It's quite possible I'm misunderstanding what's going on, so I'm hoping others can help figure this out.
>> 
>> Here's what I think is happening:
>> 
>> The new ProgressiveEnhancement.js file executes a call to fluid.browser.flash() when the file loads (and so this will happen when InfusionAll.js loads). fluid.browser.flash() references swfobject, which is defined by the file swfobject.js in one of the lib folders.
>> 
>> The problem seems to be that inside InfusionAll.js, the definition of swfobject comes *after* the reference inside fluid.browser.flash(), so as the file file loads and is executed, it tries to access swfobject before swfobject actually exists. I experimented by manually moving the definition of swfobject ahead of the use within fluid.browser.flash(), and the problem did go away.
>> 
>> Here's where I'm hoping that people more familiar with the ant build tasks can help: Does the order of occurrence of items in the "dependencies" list in the JSON files have any effect on the order of inclusion in the concatenated file? It doesn't seem to, but if it's supposed to, then that might be the bug... Or maybe it's not supposed to, in which case I'm not sure what to do.
>> 
>> Anyone have any ideas?
>> 
>> --
>> Anastasia Cheetham           acheetham at ocad.ca
>> Inclusive Design Institute  /  OCAD University
>> _______________________________________________________
>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

---
Colin Clark
Technical Lead, Fluid Project
http://fluidproject.org