I bought a full dhtmlx 2.5 pro version full package earlier.
The files are positioned in one folder (dhtmlx_pro2.5), so I define a js Macro(DHTMLX) pointing to this folder.
However, some of packages such as form, tabbar, toolbar are updated to version 3.0.
So I defined DHTMLXFORM, DHTMLXTABBAR, DHTMLXTOOLBAR pointing to their own folders: dhtmlxform_std3.0, dhtmlxtabbar_std3.0, dhtmlxtoolbar_std3.0.
Now I use both pro 2.5 and std 3.0, for example, grid and tree are pro 2.5, tabbar is std 3.0.
But, problems come.
Many codes use dhtmlxgrid, dhtmlxform, … , as well as the common used dhtmlxcontainer.js, dhtmlxcommon.js, et al.
In the pro 2.5 folder, there’s a single dhtmlxcommon.js, and there’s the same file for each dhtmlxform_std3.0, dhtmlxtabbar_std3.0.
I’m really embarrassed which one to use, and if I update one of them from the forum, how could I do to avoid later ambiguous.
You need to include a single common and single container file, from any of 3.0 components.
Those files are backward compatible so versions from 3.0 will work with 2.x components.
Hi, thanks for reply.
Is that mean I can delete or neglect all the common files in the seperate folders for DHTMLXFORM, DHTMLXTABBAR, et al, and reconstruct a common one with the one in any of the pevious mentioned folders, so that if I update or make some modification on the common file, the packages still work.
which folders should be remained in the seperate folders, usually imgs, skins, or icons?
I hope dhtmlx could give some official suggestion on how to arrange the directories in the future, and take this into consideration for the later version of released packages, so that the directories can be finely in order, and be convienient for updates of individual packages.
Personally I copied all “codebase” files in the same “dhtml” directory and all “imgs”, “ext”, etc. folders under it, joining the folders from different packages. So far it works.