Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #17193, comment 2


Ignore:
Timestamp:
May 30, 2013, 9:03:03 AM (9 years ago)
Author:
simpo
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #17193, comment 2

    initial v1  
    11I take your point that you wouldn't normally want a build for the server.  It was a bad example.
    22
    3 The issue I was trying to fix was getting a build to work in both Webworker and the normal browser window.  This is not officially supported for Dojo at the moment but it can be achieved with a few tweaks.  However, the tweaked version is totally skewed when built (due to defaults). You can have two local Dojo copies, one for browser and one for worker but much better to have one.
     3The issue I was trying to fix was getting a build to work in both Webworker and the normal browser window.  This is not officially supported for Dojo at the moment but it can be achieved with a few tweaks.  However, the tweaked version is totally screwed when built (due to defaults). You can have two local Dojo copies, one for browser and one for worker but much better to have one.
    44
    55Since, it isn't even supported by Dojo then I'm not even sure if it should be registered here as an issue. Apologies if I'm wasting anyone's time on this one.
    66
    7 I figured that there was an inconsistency in how ''staticHasFeatures'' was used by the builder when dealing with '''has("<SOME FEATURE>")''' v '''dojo/has!dom?<some module>'''.  Hence, I thought it might be worth posting as an issue. 
     7I figured that there was an inconsistency in how ''staticHasFeatures'' was used by the builder when dealing with '''has("<SOME FEATURE>")''' v '''dojo/has!<SOME FEATURE>?<some module>'''.  Hence, I thought it might be worth posting as an issue. 
    88
    99Also, if Dojo decided to build in webworker support then it might need changing in that instance.
    1010
    1111Anyway, like I said, apologies if this is a time waster.
    12