Hi Dirk, Thanks for all of the information on Mootools' history and plans for the future. I think the question of Mootools vs. jQuery can be answered fairly easily, based on one question: how important is it for developers and users of JSPWiki to be able to modify and augment the JavaScript used on their wikis (or on the Apache project itself)?
If the majority of the JS is to be done by developers on the project such as you, and there's little expectation of anyone else doing JS work, then sticking with Mootools and/or CSS3 sounds fine. I would (and suppose am) advocate for jQuery simply because, as noted by Janne and myself, jQuery has become so widespread that we can expect that there is a significantly larger pool of people who know it and know how it works, and that understanding lends itself to more people being able to both debug as well as add features to both the Apache project and their own wikis. By comparison, I don't see much in the way for Mootools. Google has almost 38 million hits for jQuery, 946,000 for Mootools. Likewise, I'd prefer we not use CCS3 simply because it's less supported than jQuery (i.e., one can rely on jQuery) and again, much better understood than CSS3's more advanced features. I'm myself learning jQuery and as I noted, will in a few months (like it or not) have become a jQuery expert (I'll be working on a large fat client project that uses jQuery). I'd be very wary of trying to modify the existing Mootool-based code simply because I'm unfamiliar with it, and I won't have time to learn Yet Another Framework anytime soon. So I might in some sense be a typical JSPWiki "user" in this regard. Also, using jQuery opens up possibilities for using other libraries such as D3.js (something Neocortext is doing). I can understand your advocacy and investment in Mootools, but hope you might consider the benefits to the JSPWiki project of moving towards jQuery -- it would bring a lot more people to a place where they could actively participate in the JavaScript-based aspects of the project. Thanks for reading, Ichiro On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Dirk Frederickx <dirk.frederi...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > > As Janne pointed out, mootools was chosen as it was the more performant, > light-weight and feature-rich js framework at the time we started with > javascript on JSPWiki. > > Today, mootools and jquery are feature-wise comparable, but jquery > definitely has won the popularity contest. I still prefer the mootools > api, because it also plays nice as an object oriented extension of the > javascript encouraging better design, ... > but of-course I may be biased ;-) > > In the past, there was relatively little JSPWiki community activity on the > front of the template javascript. The prime focus of the JSPWiki developers > community was and still is on the java/jsp part. > Therefore, there has never been a need (nor much discussion) to switch to a > more popular js framework library. > > > * * * > > > Currently, I have been preparing for a major update of the template, > including a full rewrite of the css and javascript which is still based on > mootools. This work started already on v3.0.0, but got pushed back in time > a bit .. > => Once 2.10.0 is out of the door, I plan to start checking in the new > template. > > - the new template will be based on html5 and css3; > > - the source files of the javascript and css will be modularised; and the > css will be build in LESS. WRO4J was added already to the maven scripts to > build/compose/compress the modularised css and javascripts sources. > In general, this will simplify the maintenance of the css and js sources. > > - posteditor.js will (finally) be deprecated; and replaced by a new editor; > possibly bringing a native wysiwyg editor to JSPWiki. > > - the new css stylesheet will be build on top of BOOTSTRAP, the > css-framework of Twitter, to encourage skin and stylesheet writers. This > will bring better support for other display types (tablets, smartphones...) > ; and much more ... > > - animations will gradually shift to css-based animations. > > - a number of long-standing jira issues on the template will be addressed > > > * * * > > > On the long-run, switching over to jQuery could be considered, if the > community around JSPWiki would see the benefit from that. > The api's of mootools and query are different but at the same time very > similar -- so switching should not be overly complicated. > > As browsers are becoming more 'compatible', and with the rise of html5 and > css3; there is less and less need for the "fat" javascript frameworks of > the past. (eg animations can now be done in css; so much of the js > library code can be removed) > > So, rather than moving to jQuery, we may also consider to move towards one > of the upcoming js-micro-frameworks (such as underscore, backbone, > angularjs, prime...) with much less code-weight. > > IMO adopting a strong and popular CSS framework, may be for JSPWiki > Community more important; as it may stimulate a stylesheet/skin community, > and be key to attract more JSPWiki users / developers. > > > > groet, > > dirk > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Juan Pablo Santos RodrÃguez < > juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > jspwiki-commonstyles.js uses mootools, at least for some of the effects; > > posteditor (non minified source: > > http://icebeat.bitacoras.com/public/mootools/posteditor/) is also based > on > > mootools > > > > > > br, > > juan pablo > > > > p.s.: Ichiro, hope you'll evade the asylum ;-) > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ichiro Furusato > > <ichiro.furus...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Hi Janne, > > > > > > I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I hardly > call > > > myself > > > a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do JavaScript, > so > > > guilty as charged. > > > > > > But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not > > > that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile > stuff > > > is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that uses > > > the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have > clients > > > with IE8... > > > > > > In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript files: > > > > > > - src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js > > > - src/main/scripts/posteditor.js > > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K) > > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K) > > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K) > > > - src/main/scripts/prettify.js > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla > 1024x768/skin.js > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js > > > - src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js > > > + src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js > > > > > > Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files it > > looks > > > like > > > only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only > seems > > to > > > use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though > > jspwiki-edit.js > > > and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would seem > > > that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit. > > > > > > [If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.] > > > > > > A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll be a > > > JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking forward > > > to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a position > to > > > offer > > > for awhile. > > > > > > Ichiro > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen < > > janne.jalka...@ecyrd.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable alternative, > > and > > > > Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with Mootools. > > > Since > > > > then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use > > > > anything else (despite several people promising that they'd > contribute > > a > > > > new default template ;-). > > > > > > > > (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work we're > > > often > > > > interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask them > > to > > > > make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused > and > > > > teary-eyed.) > > > > > > > > /Janne > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato < > ichiro.furus...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of > > Mootools > > > > is, > > > > > i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of > > our > > > > own > > > > > projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and > > in a > > > > > plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts > > > with > > > > > using > > > > > both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not > > pretty). > > > > > > > > > > I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more > > > > widespread > > > > > than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects > such > > as > > > > > jQuery > > > > > UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools. > > > > > > > > > > Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes) > > the > > > > > JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of > > one > > > of > > > > > the editors, or some other reason? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for any info. > > > > > > > > > > Ichiro > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
