I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say flaws are fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :) Dojo is like ejb2 to me. I'd consider ExtJS as well instead of dojo. Maybe it's a better match of widgets compared to jquery ui.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ganesh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Cagatay, > > Can we try to find arguments in favour of possible javascript libraries? > Why do you prefer jQuery? The tomahawk dependency is on dojo 0.4, current is > 1.3.1, you just cannot compare them. jQuery plugins aren't part of the main > jQuery project, so maintenance may be not guaranteed on the long term. For > example the dojo dataGrid is still in dojox because it has minor issues, but > it still is superior to all "stable" jQuery table plugins (e.g. flexgrid) > I've seen. On the other hand the main jQuery project lacks basic widgets > (combo/select, input, table, ...). Also dojo has a comprehesive validation > concept over all its widgets which isn't possible with the widespread jQuery > plugins. > > Best regards, > Ganesh > > Cagatay Civici schrieb: > >> Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency. >> >> For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery plugins >> instead of dojo. >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf >> <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the >> Facelets road, for new things. >> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based >> components; old-fashion >> renderers are still, ok... >> >> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ? >> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a >> wrapper for >> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling) >> >> -M >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > Hi Matthias, >> > >> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry >> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF >> template/dojo library, >> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0 >> out of the >> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first >> project based >> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a >> european bank. >> > We've started working on this last autumn after I released this >> artivle in >> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag >> libraries must be >> > template based: >> > >> >> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf >> . >> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make >> them a >> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject. >> > >> > Here's a link to the documentation: >> http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml >> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is >> currently >> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example). >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Ganesh >> > >> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea... >> >> >> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create >> (custom) >> >> components, >> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that >> defines >> >> a JSF 2.0 set >> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ? >> >> >> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy* >> >> component (via Facelets). >> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a >> kinda >> >> wrapper for some JS lib, >> >> e.g. jQuery. >> >> >> >> -Matthias >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >> >> >>
