PDA

View Full Version : Ext.Loader



lorezyra
17 Apr 2012, 7:38 PM
There's no option to config Ext.Loader under Application. Can you add it please?

bharatn
17 Apr 2012, 10:26 PM
Click on Loader Config in Application properties

aconran
17 Apr 2012, 11:36 PM
Loader is in the advanced configuration mode. You can also search for "loader" and it will show up.

lorezyra
17 Apr 2012, 11:54 PM
Okay, thanks. I should mention that it was not obvious to find it under application. It seems to me that it should be separate from Application.

Also, for the config of Loader.setConfig(), it does not list the available options. I did notice that you could search for them (e.g. paths).

aconran
18 Apr 2012, 12:04 AM
The idea for common vs advanced mode was to make it easier for the user by showing them less configurations that weren't necessary and to not overload them. However, I think this has really backfired and users find it confusing that they can't find configuration xyz until they search for it.

Rather than trying to enumerate all of the configurations which we consider "basic" or "common", I think moving forward we may go with the approach of... show everything.. in common/basic mode hide what we consider "obscure" configurations. This would be things that are not needed in 98% of the case or may be difficult to use configurations that most people would use incorrectly.

lorezyra
18 Apr 2012, 2:03 PM
Ah, I had yet to notice the "basic/advanced" config modes... Perhaps you could default it to advanced? That would probably be the easy fix. Then users could convert to basic if they want.


Regarding Ext.Loader, I really believe it should not be a apart of the Application config. From the API heiarchy point of view, it's not a Ext.application config object. Why not put it at the top level of the tree?

aconran
18 Apr 2012, 3:06 PM
Regarding Ext.Loader, I really believe it should not be a apart of the Application config. From the API heiarchy point of view, it's not a Ext.application config object. Why not put it at the top level of the tree?

I understand your point. We put it there bc it is associated with the application from a logical standpoint, didn't want to clutter the node and also because we get additional benefit internally in the code base by not having to deal with an additional top level node.