When you have a server side blazor app and you reference a razor class library directly (at the moment I am using dotnet5) it seems to automatically add the /_content/.bundle.scp.css by adding an #import to the .styles.css. This appears to work well enough at least in debug just by adding the reference and hitting F5.
I see conflicting documentation adding the links manually in many places and they are generally being added in the head as links, not as an #import. I am guessing this is maybe something that has changed since core3. I also have not figured out where the bundled files are supposed to "live" while you are still developing, when you publish you end up with a \wwwroot_content folder, but a development that appears not to exist on the filesystem and actually be mapped onto the \obj folders of the individual RCLs.
In the app I am currently working on the razor class libraries are loaded at run time, so this does not work automatically, for the time being I have the bundles referenced as individual links programmatically added in the head of the _host.cshtml after I copy them from the individual RCLs' obj<BuildFolder>\net5.0\ as that seems to be the only place they exist on disk. I am also serving them with an app.UseStaticFiles out of another folder since I am still unclear on how the inbuilt folders are meant to operate.
When I first figured out that the runtime load was an issue I was able to get confirmation there was not inbuilt support beyond direct references here https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/33284 and I started looking for how to re-implement the existing work-around more properly.
I would prefer this to work as similar to a directly referenced RCL as possible, but I am not finding any information on if the bundles are meant to be referenced globally at all times or conditionally, I do not see any obvious way to get them to be added as an #import programmatically, and I have no idea what the implications of trying to manually create the _content folder from the bundle files found in the various \obj folders would be.
How this is really supposed to work in development and when publishing? Is what i am doing even close or is there some glaring issue I will be encountering down the road?
We have been using Yii for building web applications. Once in a while, themes comes to our discussion table.
But, if we have a web application and we wish to change the look and feel only, we may, as well, change the public_html folder, since the structure will be similar.
The only point we see on having themes is for those cases where we may want to dynamically (user choice by clicking on a "change layout button") change the look and feel of an application.
Does anyone uses themes for any other proposes, or configurations?
We use themes to great effect. We operate 6 sites using as single instance of a Yii application. The theme is then selected based on the domain name.
Yes we could have just used 6 different application folders and served them separately. This comes with several advantages though, which you've probably already dismissed if they're not relevant to you, but here they are:
Shared code, updates and maintenance are far easier
Adding a new theme is much cleaner IMO (just a new theme folder rather than a whole application directory)
Global assets, which are then overridden easily in the theme, rather than wiping over them completely, you'r expanding them.
Shared Cache, the whole application caches to a single directory, view cache, data cache etc.
Shared Assets directory, assets are only published once ( although this could in theory be set up in a copied environment)
I much prefer this set up, it looks far cleaner just to override rather than overwrite. Plus really, I can't think of a reason why copying the whole directory would be better than this method, yes there are issues in theming that have to be worked out, but copying the whole source doesn't solve them.
We have FCKeditor in one of our projects, but we are striving for a stream-lined build process. I've noticed there seems to be a lot of bloat within the FCKEditor (images, HTML files, language.js files etc.) which are probably not used. Does anyone know which folders/files can be removed without affecting its functionality?
You can remove unnecessary connectors - for example, I removed connectors for php, perl, lasso etc (I used ASP .NET). You can find connectors on editor/filemanager/connectors/
You can remove _sample directory too.
If multilingual support is unnecessary, you can remove unnecessary languages from editor/lang
In addition to Amber's points you can remove all the plugins you don't want. Many, if not most are off by default.
I've been reading O'Reilly book "Dojo - The Definitive Guid" but somethings are still not definitive to me.
They talk about "bootstrapping" and getting the dojo.css from the AOL CDN".
When I'm testing on my machine, should I use the CDN? Or should I wait and use that only when I deploy?
Secondly, the book talks about CDN for dojo, but not for dijit.
I'm developing on Google App Engine (GAE) - so having the 2000+ Dojo/Dijit files in my Javascript directory is a little annoying, because it slows down my upload to GAE each time.
Firebug is giving me this error:
GET http://localhost:8080/dijit/nls/dijit-all_en-us.js 404 not Found
GET http://localhost:8080/dijit/_editor/plugins/FontChoice.js 404 not Found
I downloaded the sample from here:
http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/dojotoolkit/dijit/themes/themeTester.html?theme=soria
and I'd like to "simply" get it to run on my machine under local google app engine (which is the localhost:8080 that you see in the URLs above).
I see this statement which probably is causing the second 404 above:
dojo.require("dijit._editor.plugins.FontChoice");
One other error:
cannot access optimized closure
preload("en-us") dijit-all.js (line 479)
anonymous("dijit.nls.dijit-all", ["ROOT", "ar", "ca", 40 more... 0=ROOT 1=ar 2=ca 3=cs 4=da 5=de 6=de-de 7=el 8=en 9=en-gb])dijit-all.js (line 489)
dijit-all.js()
dojo.i18n._searchLocalePath(locale, true, function(loc){\n
To continue for now, I'm going to try to copy the entire dijit library, but is there a solution short of that?
My current script includes look like this:
<script type="text/javascript" src="/javascript/dijit.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/javascript/dijit-all.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I got the dijit.js file by copying and renaming dijit.js.uncompressed.js to dijit.js.
You have a few options actually:
You could use the CDN for everything (though using the full source locally does give you better error messages). Google has them as well. Dijit is here: http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/dojo/1.3.2/dijit/dijit.js FYI. This has many advantages in my opinion. User caching of the JS being the primary one.
Build a layered file. I think the O'Reilly book has a section about it but the PragProg book is better in this regard IMO. There's also this doc on dojocampus.org about building. This will trim down the files you need to upload to GAE and speed up your app loading. This is actually what I do in order to cut down on HTTP requests.
Keep doing what you are doing. :)
Regarding the errors you are seeing about 404 for en-us files are essentially harmless. Here's a better description.
You also might be reloading dijit files by using dijit.uncompressed.js and dijit-all.js and causing problems in the process...but I'm not sure about this one.
I just want to clarify that when using CDN all you need to include is the main Dojo script. The rest will be pulled in automatically when you dojo.require() them.
If for some (technical) reasons you don't want to use the X-Domain loader (CDNs use this type of loader), you can do a custom build (well-described in many places). After the build you copy only relevant files to your server. No need to copy all 2000+ tests, demos, unused DojoX projects, Dijits and so on.
During the build you will create a single minified file (or a few layers), which will include all Dojo JavaScript code you use. If you use Dojo widgets, their templates will be already inlined, so you do not incur hits for them. As part of the build CSS files are combined together and minified too. So literally in most cases you will have just two files: a Dojo layer, which includes everything + your custom code, and a CSS file. In more complex cases you may have more files, but usually we are talking about handful.
How to make sure that everything is in the build? Fire up your favorite network analyzer (Live HTTP Headers, Firebug, Fiddler2, or Charles Proxy would do fine) and see if you hit any files outside of your build. If you do — include them in the build, or try to figure out why they are requested, and eliminate these requests (some localization-related calls are fine).
Personally I would start with the CDN option — works well, no hassle, hosted by somebody else with fat pipes.
To address your first question, use the full source version locally for development, so that you can get clearer debug info which points to a legible line in source, rather than the single line the minified version is reduced to. Use the CDN for production.
I am still struggling to find a good naming convention for assets like images, js and css files used in my web projects.
So, my current would be:
CSS: style-{name}.css
examples: style-main.css, style-no_flash.css, style-print.css etc.
JS:
script-{name}.js
examples: script-main.js, script-nav.js etc.
Images: {imageType}-{name}.{imageExtension}
{imageType} is any of these
icon (e. g. question mark icon for help content)
img (e. g. a header image inserted via <img /> element)
button (e. g. a graphical submit button)
bg (image is used as a background image in css)
sprite (image is used as a background image in css and contains multiple "versions")
Example-names would be: icon-help.gif, img-logo.gif, sprite-main_headlines.jpg, bg-gradient.gif etc.
So, what do you think and what is your naming convention?
I've noticed a lot of frontend developers are moving away from css and js in favor of styles and scripts because there is generally other stuff in there, such as .less, .styl, and .sass as well as, for some, .coffee. Fact is, using specific technology selections in your choice of folder organization is a bad idea even if everyone does it. I'll continue to use the standard I see from these highly respected developers:
src/html
src/images
src/styles
src/styles/fonts
src/scripts
And their destination build equivalents, which are sometimes prefixed with dest depending on what they are building:
./
images
styles
styles/fonts
scripts
This allows those that want to put all files together (rather than breaking out a src directory) to keep that and keeps things clearly associated for those that do break out.
I actually go a bit futher and add
scripts/before
scripts/after
Which get smooshed into two main-before.min.js and main-after.min.js scripts, one for the header (with essential elements of normalize and modernizr that have to run early, for example) and after for last thing in the body since that javascript can wait. These are not intended for reading, much like Google's main page.
If there are scripts and style sheets that make sense to minify and leave linked alone because of a particular cache management approach that is taken care of in the build rules.
These days, if you are not using a build process of some kind, like gulp or grunt, you likely are not reaching most of the mobile-centric performance goals you should probably be considering.
I place CSS files in a folder css, Javascript in js, images in images, ... Add subfolders as you see fit. No need for any naming convention on the level of individual files.
/Assets/
/Css
/Images
/Javascript (or Script)
/Minified
/Source
Is the best structure I've seen and the one I prefer. With folders you don't really need to prefix your CSS etc. with descriptive names.
For large sites where css might define a lot of background images, a file naming convention for those assets comes in really handy for making changes later on.
For example:
[component].[function-description].[filetype]
footer.bkg-image.png
footer.copyright-gradient.png
We have also discussed adding in the element type, but im not sure how helpful that is and could possibly be misleading for future required changes:
[component].[element]-[function-description].[filetype]
footer.div-bkg-image.png
footer.p-copyright-gradient.png
You can name it like this:
/assets/css/ - For CSS files
/assets/font/ - For Font files. (Mostly you can just go to google fonts to search for usable fonts.)
/assets/images/ - For Images files.
/assets/scripts/ or /assets/js/ - For JavaScript files.
/assets/media/ - For video and misc. files.
You can also replace "assets" with "resource" or "files" folder name and keep the name of it's subfolders. Well having an order folder structure like this isn't very important the only important is you just have to arrange your files by it's format. like creating a folder "/css/" for CSS files or "/images/" for Image files.
First, I divide into folders: css, js, img.
Within css and js, I prefix files with the project name because your site may include js and css files which are components, this makes it clear where files are specific for your site, or relating to plugins.
css/mysite.main.css css/mysite.main.js
Other files might be like
js/jquery-1.6.1.js
js/jquery.validate.js
Finally images are divided by their use.
img/btn/submit.png a button
img/lgo/mysite-logo.png a logo
img/bkg/header.gif a background
img/dcl/top-left-widget.jpg a decal element
img/con/portait-of-something.jpg a content image
It's important to keep images organized since there can be over 100 and can easily get totally mixed together and confusingly-named.
I tend to avoid anything generic, such as what smdrager suggested. "mysite.main.css" doesn't mean anything at all.
What is "mysite"?? This one I'm working on? If so then obvious really, but it already has me thinking what it might be and if it is this obvious!
What is "Main"? The word "Main" has no definition outside the coders knowledge of what is within that css file.
While ok in certain scenarios, avoid names like "top" or "left" too: "top-nav.css" or "top-main-logo.png".
You might end up wanting to use the same thing elsewhere, and putting an image in a footer or within the main page content called "top-banner.png" is very confusing!
I don't see any issue with having a good number of stylesheets to allow for a decent naming convention to portray what css is within the given file.
How many depends entirely on the size of the site and what it's function(s) are, and how many different blocks are on the site.
I don't think you need to state "CSS" or "STYLE" in the css filenames at all, as the fact it's in "css" or "styles" folder and has an extension of .css and mainly as these files are only ever called in the <head> area, I know pretty clearly what they are.
That said, I do this with library, JS and config (etc) files. eg libSomeLibrary.php, or JSSomeScript.php. As PHP and JS files are included or used in various areas within other files, and having info of what the file's main purpose is within the name is useful.
eg: Seeing the filename require('libContactFormValidation.php'); is useful. I know it's a library file (lib) and from the name what it does.
For image folders, I usually have images/content-images/ and images/style-images/. I don't think there needs to be any further separation, but again it depends on the project.
Then each image will be named accordingly to what it is, and again I don't think there's any need for defining the file is an image within the file name. Sizes can be useful, especially for when images have different sizes.
site-logo-150x150.png
site-logo-35x35.png
shop-checkout-button-40x40.png
shop-remove-item-20x20.png
etc
A good rule to follow is: if a new developer came to the files, would they sit scratching their head for hours, or would they likely understand what things do and only need a little time researching (which is unavoidable)?
As anything like this, however, one of the most important rules to follow is simply constancy!
Make sure you follow the same logic and patterns thoughout all your naming conventions!
From simple css file names, to PHP library files to database table and column names.
This is an old question, but still valid.
My current recommendation is to go with something in this lines:
assets (or assets-web or assets-www); this one is intended for static content used by the client (browser)
data; some xml files and other stuff
fonts
images
media
styles
scripts
lib (or 3rd-party); this one is intended for code you don't make or modify, the libraries as you get them
lib-modded (or 3rd-party-modified); this one is intended for code you weren't expected to modify, but had to, like applying a workaround/fix in the meantime the library provider releases it
inc (or assets-server or assets-local); this one is intended for content used server side, not to be used by the client, like libraries in languages like PHP or server scripts, like bash files
fonts
lib
lib-modded
I marked in bold the usual ones, the others are not usual content.
The reason for the main division, is in the future you can decide to server the web assets from a CDN or restrict client access to server assets, for security reasons.
Inside the lib directories i use to be descriptive about the libraries, for example
lib
jquery.com
jQuery
vX.Y.Z
github
[path]
[library/project name]
vX.Y.Z (version)
so you can replace the library with a new one, without breaking the code, also allowing future code maintainers, including yourself, to find the library and update it or get support.
Also, feel free to organize the content inside according to its usage, so images/logos and images/icons are expected directories in some projects.
As a side note, the assets name is meaningful, not only meaning we have resources in there, but meaning the resources in there must be of value for the project and not dead weight.
The BBC have tons of standards relating web development.
Their standard is fairly simple for CSS files:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/technical/css.shtml
You might be able to find something useful on their main site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/