Forums
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:00 pm



Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 RFC: Planning for 1.0 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:46 am
Posts: 1441
Post RFC: Planning for 1.0
Hello PIE users!

Since the latest 1.0beta5 release, there have been some major changes made to PIE's architecture. These changes have some huge advantages and allow a ton of new features and fixes, but any time you make big changes like this there is a high risk of instability.

Because I'm wary of putting such high-risk architectural changes into a late beta, I am considering releasing a non-beta 1.0, which would basically be beta5 plus a few cherry-picked fixes. The other sweeping changes would then be targeted toward a new 2.0 beta line, so that they have time to bake properly.

I of course want to make sure this is in the best interest of the community, so I'm requesting your comments on this plan:

1) Does releasing a 1.0, with the current feature set plus a few fixes, sound wise to you? Is it solid enough to be called non-beta?

2) Assuming it does, what fixes in particular do you feel are important to go into the 1.0 release? Use the issues list and the commits since beta5 as a basis for ideas.

Thanks in advance for your time!
--Jason Johnston


Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:36 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 30
Post Re: RFC: Planning for 1.0
1. Depends on how many amendments you added
2. it must be compatible with beta5
3. the most important is speed (non-beta should be faster than bet5)
4. add rgba and border-image for border
5. delete backgroud in box-shadow if I use transparent (see here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1493&start=10)

It all for me, thanks for your work


Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:54 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:58 am
Posts: 2
Post Re: RFC: Planning for 1.0
We are using lastest PIE here and it seems pretty stable for our case.

So I would vote for 1.0 and for stability fixes first !!!

Next, i wish you could focus on perf. issue, particularly targeting IE8 (IE7 is no more important for us and its usage share is decreasing rapidly).
Perf. issues are what cause us to disable box-sahdow and in some cases linear-gradients for IE8 and below.

Thx for your precious work.
http://twiiter.com/signap


Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:53 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:55 am
Posts: 7
Post Re: RFC: Planning for 1.0
Quote:
1) Does releasing a 1.0, with the current feature set plus a few fixes, sound wise to you? Is it solid enough to be called non-beta?
Yes, I think PIE 1.0beta5 is very stable, so PIE 1.0 Final would also be very stable.
Quote:
2) Assuming it does, what fixes in particular do you feel are important to go into the 1.0 release?
Improve performance of polling - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1446 - and/or disable polling (-pie-poll: false;) by default and point developers to using if (window.PIE) {document.getElementById('...').fireEvent('onresize')} (use onresize instead of onmove since in contrast to IE8 no linear-gradient gets drawn in IE9 after an onmove event, while onresize works fine in both IE8 and IE9) - http://snippets.webaware.com.au/snippet ... -elements/ - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=860 - because now when PIE is attached to many elements CPU usage in IE8 and IE9 can become very high due to polling - even when doing nothing except viewing the page.


Last edited by CSS_JS on Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:15 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 27
Post Re: RFC: Planning for 1.0
I would like for 1.0 to be what we have now + a few fixes.

Any new 'features' should be added (IMO), in a later beta. Most of us have not built PIE with some of the new features in github, so, testing might find issues.

Thanks for the great work!!!


Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 53
Post Re: RFC: Planning for 1.0
I reckon current + any fixes you can squeeze in, but particularly that IE8 performance fix. I think PIE's pretty stable now, but if you think making it non-beta might bring the herds thundering down, then it would be prudent to ward off the inevitable "my site is too sluggish in IE8 [because my pages have 390 elements PIE has to manage 4 times/sec]". And maybe add the fireEvent("onmove") thing to the doco so scripters won't have to google for it :)


Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:45 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:55 am
Posts: 7
Post Re: RFC: Planning for 1.0
About the docs: On http://css3pie.com/documentation/pie-js/ the conditional comment [if lt IE 10] can be reduced to [if IE] since IE 10 doesn't read conditional comments: https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/201 ... -ie10.aspx


Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:42 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:46 am
Posts: 1441
Post Re: RFC: Planning for 1.0
FYI, the documentation is all in GitHub so you can easily submit improvements/fixes to them yourself. It's much less likely that they'll get forgotten that way. ;)

https://github.com/lojjic/PIE/tree/master/documentation

Keep the comments coming, they're very helpful. I've started incorporating some of them already.


Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:17 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:26 am
Posts: 1
Post Re: RFC: Planning for 1.0
Despite the master branch being pretty awesome right now, I have seen a couple of problems that would, IMHO, prevent it from being considered "stable":

- IE9 doesn't show border-image
- in some circumstances, when a PIE'd element is inside an hidden container on page load and then shown with a jquery animation (e.g. show('slow')) at a later time, part of the the PIEING doesn't work.
The most common problem, in this case, is that top/left position inline css isn't applied, so it might appear in a wrong position, or not at all.
This is the old "vector 2d" exception

I will try to make a few test cases for these situations in the next few days - other than this tho, master branch is definitely stable release material!


Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:07 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:46 am
Posts: 1441
Post Re: RFC: Planning for 1.0
@razor: Thanks for the input, if you could create test cases for those issues that would be great.

To be clear, I'm not at all suggesting using the master branch as 1.0, I want to branch off from the beta5 release (in fact I've already done so, check out the 1.x branch). The large refactoring that has happened in master since beta5 is way too unstable.


Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:27 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.