My "Huh?" comment was in reference you your statement that the approach I was describing "doesn't really help people with existing apps", which I take issue with. If you put the JavaScript methods in separate file, it has the exact same impact on the JSP pages as your approach does, but without needing the custom attributes. You say 'ajaxRef="button1"' and I say 'onclick="doButton1()"'.
Ok, I may have misunderstood that.
Moving on though...
> "If you put the JavaScript methods in separate file, it has the > exact same impact on the JSP pages as your approach does"
I do not belive this is true, and here's why... as far as the event handlers go, I agree, the impact is virtually identical... But in terms of what the event handler calls there is I think a big difference. Going back to your original example, you state:
Elsewhere in the JSP page, or maybe somewhere else:
function doButton1() {
dojo.io.bind({
url: "http://www.omnytex.com?buttonValue=button1&textValue=text1";,
load: function(type, data) {
document.getElementById("resultLayer").innerHTML = data; },
mimetype: "text/plain"
});
}Now, that looks like more work to me because, if nothing else, I'm writing the return handler myself. And if I had to write 20 of these functions for a single page, ugh! You mentioned DynaActionForms saving a lot of tedious coding... this is about as tedious as it gets :)
If you want to argue that moving these functions out to another file that you include makes the situation better, I'd say only marginally better because the benefit of separating the code is offset somewhat by the fact that now there are two files to maintain. Then again, you could also argue that THAT is better because you can have coders handling the JS while you have page authors handling just the markup :) (beat you to the punch on that one!)
**
You know, it just dawned on me... in all of this, recall that my proposal allowed for you to call whatever JS function you want rather than have the code generated for you... there is absolutely nothing to stop you from calling a function that uses Dojo! This gives you, I think, the best of both worlds: you get to use Dojo, but you can still do so in a declative way... although, you'd take on the responsibility of importing the necassery JS code and implementing the send and receive handlers, at which point there probably isn't a whole lot to be gained by the config file anyway, in fact it would probably be counterproductive... but the point is you *can* do this.
**
You know, when all is said and done, we simply have a difference of opinion in all this. I'd bet neither of us really wants to debate this for the next week :) I think we're probably at that point where we aren't going to convince each other of anything but some relatively small points at best.
I don't deny that Dojo looks cool, and if you are happily using it I am genuinely happy about it! If you want to tell people how great it is, that is fine with me too (although I would hope you recognize your position gives your opinions weight and would be a little careful about proclaiming anything to be the endorsed answer).
I am going to go off and implement my idea because if nothing else I have seen a decent amount of interest amidst all this debate. The simple fact that the whole concept was reopened by someone else (I had nothing to do with it, I was actually completely off this whole idea after the initial RFC thread died down) should indicate it isn't just me that thinks it has merit.
In the end, choice is good. Like all FOSS projects, if when it's done people find it useful and want to use it, that will make me rather happy. If they discover Dojo and think it's the cat's meow, that is sweet too. If they go off in a completely different direction, things are working as they are supposed to because a choice was made between a number of options :)
Frank
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
