I've added a new issue for this, JSPWIKI-811 ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-811).
Ichiro On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Dirk Frederickx <dirk.frederi...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Ichiro, > > I do not dispute jQuery's popularity. > If switching to jQuery helps in having in broader developer base for the > javascript, I'am all for it. > > Anyway, I prefer to first switch to the new template and the rewritten css > & js. Refactoring to jQuery will be more easy then. > > * * * > > I propose you log a JIRA improvement ticket to move to jQuery, so we can > track the discussion there. > > > dirk > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Ichiro Furusato > <ichiro.furus...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
