Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 40682 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2008 19:16:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Mar 2008 19:16:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 42968 invoked by uid 500); 13 Mar 2008 19:16:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 42901 invoked by uid 500); 13 Mar 2008 19:16:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 42890 invoked by uid 99); 13 Mar 2008 19:16:13 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:16:13 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of grek@tuffmail.com designates 216.86.168.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.86.168.178] (HELO mxout-03.mxes.net) (216.86.168.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:15:25 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.195] (unknown [212.76.37.214]) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F267D23E3F8 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <47D97BE4.9050706@tuffmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:09:24 +0100 From: Grzegorz Kossakowski User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [2.2] Forms dependency on Ajax block References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Luca Morandini pisze: > I must admit I am a bit uneasy about this dependency, which adds > considerably to the JAR-tonnage of Cocoon even when the user is not > interested in Ajax forms. > > Is this inevitable or there is a way to disentangle the two blocks ? > > As far as I understand one has to change forms-field-styling.xsl to > avoid loading DoJo widgets if not needed, but I ignore whether there are > other links to sever. Dojo is used to only handle Ajax mode of Forms but to handle advanced field styling of Forms widgets as well that has nothing to do with Ajax. Advanced styling means for example date picker which is done by Dojo's widget. This means that Forms must depend on Ajax (Dojo to be more precise) despite the fact you use Ajax or not. I hope this clarifies a little bit. -- Grzegorz Kossakowski