Yes, we ditch prototype.
I liked it personally - but they do not support namespacing, and that
is an issue.
If you define a global javascript object named Effect, you do not
expect to cooperate with any other javascript library out there, and
we cannot afford that in our case... I absolutely buy Martin Coopers
position here after having talked with the prototype guys again...
regards,
Martin
On 2/9/06, Travis Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Actually to my knowledge dojo does not have anything in this regard, and
> > I cannot see how, because this is heavy jsf specific in how to do
> > things, but it is possible to do it anyway, and dojo can help in certain
> > areas. First the whole ajax calling structure can be simplified and made
> > protocol agnostic:
> >
> > dojo.io.bind({
> > url: "http://foo.bar.com/sampleData.js";,
> > load: function(type, evaldObj){ /* do something */ },
> > mimetype: "text/plain", // get plain text, don't eval()
> > transport: "XMLHTTPTransport"
> > });
> >
> > theoretically you can get away with that one:
> >
> > dojo.io.bind({
> > url: "http://foo.bar.com/sampleData.txt";,
> > load: function(type, data, evt){ /*do something w/ the data */ },
> > mimetype: "text/plain"
> > });
>
> Are we ditching prototype then? This looks just like the prototype
> functions.
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
