Hi,
What would you think to add a fallback option to javascript_include_tag?
If I load dojo from Google CDN, I''d like a fallback. The easiest way to
do
so is by putting a script tage right after it:
<script>typeof(dojo) === "undefined" &&
document.write(unescape(''%3Cscript
src="assets/javascripts/dojo.js"%3E%3C/script%3E''));</script>
But the dojo library should go in your /vendors/assets/ not in your
/public/assets. To get it served, I need to play with the
config.assets.precompile if I understand well. Anyway, it all seem very
hacky too me.
What would you think of being able to do something like that:
= javascript_include_tag
"http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/dojo/1.6.1/dojo/dojo.xd.js",
:test => ''typeof(dojo) === "undefined"'', :local
=> ''local/path/to/dojo''
That way rails take care of putting the extra <script> tag for us with the
test and most importantly, can precompile the file and set the good path.
What do you think?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/R6SI2KVerccJ.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Why not just something like this? Then you can put your dojo.js in
assets/javascripts and compile it like normal. Seems kind of unnecessary to
add extra logic to javascript_include_tag
<%= javascript_include_tag
"http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/dojo/1.6.1/dojo/dojo.xd.js"
%>
<script type="text/javascript">
if ( typeof(dojo) === "undefined" ) {
script = document.createElement(''script'');
script.type = "text/javascript";
script.src = ''<%= asset_path "dojo.js" %>'';
document.getElementsByTagName(''head'')[0].appendChild(script);
}
</script>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/uLhgXEinLwoJ.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Hi Tim, That''s what I''m doing and it works just fine. Though the second <script> tag belongs to the first one and could be generated/linked to it. It is just an idea that would make it cleaner and more self contained. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/CubTUihIYjgJ. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Gotcha. You could always create a helper for it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/HweoZagzy1cJ. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.