[Radiant] mailers, which one should I use?

[Chris Parrish]

Danny,

I was hoping to include a fix for this issue with v0.4 but did not get 
to it yet.  But, for now, you can already solve this issue using the 
config settings that I have built into the SnS extension (don't know why 
I didn't think of this sooner).

To do this you edit the custom_settings.rb file in the root of the 
extension.  In there you will find instructions and commented-out 
settings for the stylesheet_directory and javascript_directory (lines 24 
& 25 in my latest version).  Based on your example, you'd set these to:

  StylesNScripts::Config[:stylesheet_directory] = 'radiantroot/css'
  StylesNScripts::Config[:javascript_directory] = 'radiantroot/js'

Or if you want to get creative, you could:

  StylesNScripts::Config[:stylesheet_directory] = 
'radiantroot/assets/my-stylesheets'
  StylesNScripts::Config[:javascript_directory] = 
'radiantroot/assets/my-javascripts'

Restart your server and everything should just work for you (unless I'm 
misunderstanding your request here).  These settings will automatically 
adjust caching, rendering, and all the tags.

-Chris

danny q. wrote:
> Yes I am using Styles 'n Scripts,
>
> and yes, I did notice most of this was fixed in 0.6.5, but IIRC, there
> were two problems I had to address for the relative link issue. 
>
> First, with the old-fashioned script and style linking, each had to be
> set explicitly in the <link> tag.  That is, I had to do <link
> href="/radiantroot/..."> instead of just href="...".  That wasn't a big
> deal, because it was in layouts which I only had to think about once
> (but then would have had to remind myself to change before deploying and
> moving to the url root).  I'd hardly call this an issue with radiant. 
> It's just how the html is supposed to work, right?
>
> Second, the problem was a general gotcha with extensions.  Any extension
> based on a path relative to / wouldn't work.  This included
> styles-n-scripts, mailer, and, I think calendar.  I dug around for a
> definition of a variable that would fix that, but didn't have much luck,
> so decided to just go with the .htaccess hack.  It works well enough for
> testing, and I definitely 'get' the whole thing about radiant not being
> defined for sub-urls.
>
> It might be interesting to see how well the root url variable definition
> would work, but it looks like some of the extensions just assume it's
> "/" and hard-code that way (based on my shaky RoR reading), so that
> could limit the mileage a bit.
>
> By the way, great work on both Radiant and the SnS extension.  Thank you.
>
> --danny
>
>