I think it’s a fabulous idea. Two thumbs up. > On 14 Feb 2019, at 9:07 pm, Bob Harner <bobhar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree that Tapestry shouldn't be so tightly coupled to a specific CSS > framework. > > For context and some alternative ideas, see this prior discussion of the > same topic: > > https://tapestry.markmail.org/search/?q=What+happens+when+Boootstrap+4+is+released%3F > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 4:52 AM Ben Weidig <b...@netzgut.net wrote: > >> Hi Jens, >> >> I like the idea of decoupling the core and Bootstrap to make it easier to >> use other versions. >> >> Maybe the components should be updated to BS4 for T5.5, with a legacy >> fallback or a component swap (can't remember the service doing it, we have >> our own implementation, it's doing an advice on >> ComponentClassResolver#resolveComponentTypeToClassName or >> ComponentInstantiatorSource#getInstantiator). >> >> For 5.4 we've developed an internal solution for using different BS >> versions, here are some specifics. >> >> We have multi-tenant-apps with different BS versions (so far up to 3), so >> we needed a flexible solution that supports the internal BS and other >> versions dynamically. >> >> To make it even more flexible we've added SASS-support and compile >> Bootstrap from the source files, with the possibility to add files >> beforehand to the compilation step with custom variables etc. >> >> The layout component has an annotation that triggers >> a ComponentClassTransformWorker2 attaching a JavaScriptStack containing the >> BS version decided by a contributable strategy pipeline. >> >> JavaScript modules were the biggest problems, we started with replacing the >> internal modules, but ended up adding additional modules instead. This >> worked fine after getting all the dependencies right, but every BS version >> might break it again, so we're now using the bundled version of BS JS. >> >> We think this could all be cleaned up nicely if the internal BS wouldn't be >> as integrated as it is right now. >> >> Eventually we will release it as open-source, but having an integration >> into Tapestry (as a new tapestry-*) would be even nicer :-) >> >> Best regards >> Ben >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:14 AM Jens Breitenstein <mailingl...@j-b-s.de> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Tapestry guys! >>> >>> I want to hear/read your opinion about getting rid of the Bootstrap >>> Library from T5 core. >>> I would like to move all BS related code (css/js) to a seperate module >>> like "tapestry-bootstrap3" and decouple the hardcoded BS from T5. >>> Furthermore I would like to see a second module "tapestry-bootstrap4" >>> which uses BS4. >>> >>> From the sources I see direct dependencies are less than expected. Some >>> tml's use it (I just ignore the internal T5 pages for now): >>> >>> AjaxFormLoop.tml >>> class="btn btn-default btn-sm" >>> <t:glyphicon name="plus-sign"/> >>> >>> BeanEditForm.tml >>> class="btn-toolbar" >>> class="btn-group" >>> class="btn btn-primary" >>> >>> DevTool.tml >>> <t:glyphicon name="cog"/> >>> class="dropdown-menu" >>> class="dropdown-header" >>> >>> ExceptionDisplay.tml >>> class="well" >>> class="pull-right" >>> class="checkbox" // ? >>> >>> Palette.tml >>> class="btn-group-vertical" >>> >>> and some JAVA references like: >>> >>> JavaScriptModule.java >>> configuration.add("bootstrap/ ...") >>> >>> bundledModules=... >>> >>> >>> Do you think it's worths looking into it, digging deeper? >>> Any pitfalls I should consider? >>> Anyone interested to discuss it? >>> >>> >>> Jens >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org >>> >>> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
