AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they
use OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they
don't have the OS spirit.
Cagatay Civici schrieb:
Afaik gpl3 is compatible with apache v2?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think the ExtJS has a GPL-style license, right ?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Cagatay Civici
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 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]
<mailto:[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]>
>>> <mailto:[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]>
>>> <mailto:[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
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
