custom linked files in core javascript

[mokhet]

in htmlarea.js we can find the following codes

this.helpURL  = _editor_url + "reference.html";
iframe.src = _editor_url + "popups/blank.html";
this._popupDialog("link.html", function(param) {
this._popupDialog("insert_image.html", function(param) {
this._popupDialog("insert_table.html", function(param) {
this._popupDialog("select_color.html", function(color) {
win = window.open(this.popupURL("fullscreen.html"), "ha_fullscreen",
case "about"    : this._popupDialog("about.html", null, this); break;

all this fonctions are hard linked to .html files, if we want to locally update one of thoses files, we have to manually update htmlarea.js which is a bad idea, cause it forces to manually check SVN updates.

I think it would be better to be allowed to update the files when configuring

think we could do it with something like that

HTMLArea.Config = function () {
  var cfg = this;
  ...

  this.hardlinked = {
   'reference': 'reference.html',
   'blank': 'blank.html',
   'link': 'link.html',
   'insert_image': 'insert_image.html',
   'insert_table': 'insert_table.html',
   'select_color': 'select_color.html',
   'fullscreen': 'fullscreen.html',
   'about': 'about.html'
  };
  
  ...
}

Then to update for any reason link.html to my_own_link.php or link.jsp or anything else, we would just have to use the config way

var xinha_config = new HTMLArea.Config();
xinha_config.hardlinked["link"] = 'my_own_link.php';

Hope you see what i mean and that my little example didnt confused too much.

[niko]

Instead you could write a very simple plugin that opens my_own_link.php instead of the link.html!

(Like the ImageManager overwrites the insert-image)

[mokhet]

it's not very user friendly to do a new plugin to change such files. A plugin for all of thoses files should be provided and in this case it is lot of pain for few needs. It's more efficient to just let anyone configure it easily from the configuration step.

What is better ?

1) Ask users to create a new plugin (kinda complex to understand at first) when they want to change a link or when a new link is added they want to update

or

2) ask them to update their config files to be acurate with theirs needs ?

the second solution is, at least from my side of view, the easiest way to satisfy everyone, both you (devs) and us (users).

For second argument, i'll use the fact that it is better to have only one place to stock uris locations and not have them lost somewhere in all the code.

i attach the patch i have for revision 59, my first SVN patch, hope it's not too messed :P

[mokhet]

patch for revision 59

[niko]

i let gogo decide if he will include this patch.

[gogo]

Looks good, committed in changeset:63