On 27 Jul 2012, at 09:04, Alex Anderson <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Is it possible to add new resources to a bundle using the `overrides` section?
>> Yes but you don't need to. Bundles are cross-module - although this can introduce some module dependency confusion.
> This didn't appear to work...
Did you try it in an overrides section rather than in a duplicated module name?
>
>> You can either add resources to a module, which should use the default bundle of that module, and/or you can specify >
> If a GSP in a plugin "requires" module `X` (originally defined in the
> plugin), will that also include resources from *bundle* `X` defined in
> module `Y` with `defaultBundle('X')` inside the main application?
> i.e. does gsp code such as `<r:require module="X"/>` include the
> bundle or the module?
>
Require is about *modules*, nothing else. A bundle is just a resource that is created for you, by aggregating other resources.
By default, a module will be bundle if it has > 1 resource of a bundlable type, and it will be bundled using the module name.
You change this with defaultBundle setting on the module, or per-resource bundle ids.
> If I add resources to bundle X in the way described above, is there a
> way to guarantee order, especially of resources from the plugin vs
> resources from the application?
Let me correct you (I think): you are not adding a resource to a bundle. You are adding a resource to a module. It may or may not be bundled, that is a packaging detail.
However that's an interesting problem. Currently you cannot order resources added in "overrides" clause, but this is feasible in future because you can address resources by id within the module you are overriding, so we could have "after:['x', 'y']" and a before equivalent.
You can do this now by structuring your modules well, breaking them down into dependencies that will let you use overrides to add a dependsOn to the module, such that it depends on your code that you want to add at a certain place.
Using overrides you can change the dependencies of any module:
modules = {
common {
dependsOn 'x', 'y', 'z'
}
x {
resource url:'css/main.css'
}
y {
resource url:'css/sub1.css'
}
z {
resource url:'css/sub2.css'
}
}
Then in you could override the dependencies of common:
modules = {
overrides {
common {
dependsOn 'x', 'newmodule', 'y', 'z'
}
}
newmodule {
resource url:'css/injected.css'
}
}
That will make the order of resources:
main.css
injected.css
sub1.css
sub2.css
Note that they would not be bundled at all, because no module has more than one resource in it (why bundle one resource?).
If you add bundle:'whatever' to all those resources, or defaultBundle:'whatever' to all those modules, they will be bundled together - but I can't guarantee right now that they appear in the right dependency order in the bundle. This was (or is) a known and complex bug.
Generally bundling is best done within modules at the moment.
Marc
~ ~ ~
Marc Palmer
Freelancer (Grails/Groovy/Java/UX)
I offer commercial support for Grails plugins from as low as $50/mo.
For details see:
http://grailsrocks.comBlog:
http://www.anyware.co.uk | Resumé:
http://www.anyware.co.uk/marcContributor @
http://grails.org | Founder @
http://noticelocal.comDeveloper @
http://weceem.org | Member @
http://spottymushroom.comTwitter:
http://twitter.com/wangjammer5
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Locked
