Thanks for detailing the future of browser and how jsf cope up with it.
I was using mojarra for my application and the commandLink was not working due
to script problem.So I switched to myfaces and we got some problem with
repeated ajax calls. (Myfaces 4160).
Are we syncing with mojarra regarding the technology to be used with the
jsf.js, entire scripting arena.Not sure spec say anything about the technology
used for scripting.
Thanks & Regards,Dora Rajappan.
On Thursday, October 5, 2017, 11:32:23 PM GMT+5:30, Thomas Andraschko
<andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
yep. +1 for IE11 in JSF.next
2017-10-05 14:36 GMT+02:00 Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com>:
Yeah given the timeframe, I guess IE11 is perfectly fine. We cannot
expect JSF 2.4 to hit the final spec before 2019, by then even
corporate support of Windows 7 will come to an end.
The main problem I see is that we probably will be stuck with supporting
IE11 for many years, since Microsoft still basically packs it in with every
windows 10 sort of as secondary browser. So IE11 support will die about 10
years after Microsoft stops doing it.
And believe me even IE11
is currently the bottom barrely quality and speedwise you currently get
in the browser space. Even frameworks like Angular 1 basically drive the IE11
engine to its limits, the more shims you add it the bigger the browser becomes
as a problem in day to day development.
I guess we once will hit the point where we will say we cannot support it
anymore. Not now not in 2 years but sometime in the future.
Werner
Am 05.10.17 um 14:12 schrieb Mike Kienenberger:
I think it's ok for us to say that the baseline is IE11. If you are
concerned, take a poll on the users list.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Thomas Andraschko
<andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Werner,
big +1 for doing a completely new jsf.js!
Basically it would be really great to use another lang as plain js.
But there is also another downside: most webdevelopers and commiters of
MyFaces are fimilar with plain js but maybe not with TypeScript or else.
But i think we should do it if can we can easily integrate it somehow in our
maven builds.
My personal opinion is that i would prefer plain js if the developers must
install nodejs etc. on their machines. If everything is done by maven in the
background, it's ok for me.
As you already said, we actually must avoid dependencies like kotlin.js and
jquery.js - thats a no go and also not really required.
Regards,
Thomas
2017-10-05 9:19 GMT+02:00 Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com>:
Hi guys
I just wanted to start a discussion on how we are going to proceed with
the jsf.js codebase.
The issue is following:
Our codebase which currently is adapted by me for 2.3 is rather old.
It by now is around 9-10 years old and back then most of the stuff I did
made sense
a) The library needed to be self contained
b) There were an awful lot of browsers in use, which did not adhere to any
standards whatsoever
c) There was no real inheritance system available just the prototype
system which is one level below inheritance by allowing to access the
class/object tree and manipulate it on the fly
So what I did was following
Implement my own class system for not having to deal with prototype
inheritance all the time
Since I needed to be self contained integrating a library like JQuery
(which also was it its infancy at that time) was out of the question
due to possible conflicts. There also was no widespread support
for querySelector on node level some browsers had it some browsers
had other workarounds to speed the dom node lookup up.
Also no unified ajax handling, the ajax api was at its infancy and I still
had to support the archaic IE way of doing things.
To the worse there were significant differences in dom and xml handling
between the various browsers out in the wild compared to the already
defined standards (I am speaking of you IE and mobile browsers in use back
then)
So in the end I ended up with a codebase which is about 40-50% there just
to support legacy browsers. While I did some work to isolate the quirks code
and compile it out of the codebase there still is work to be done.
Again all of this made sense back then...
Lots of things have been changed in those 10 years and now most of the
things do not make sense anymore.
a) We have saner meta languages which allow to compile to javascript,
following candidates come to my mind
- Typescript, a language which I amn very familiar with due to my day to
day work
- Coffeescript ... not very familiar with that one
- Kotlin... yes that one also has a javascript target compiler
We definitely should opt for a meta compiler instead of pure js.
The reasons are many, and I can speak here atm only for Typescript
- You can change ecma script levels on build level
- You can change the package management system in build level
- You get additional coding security by having the apis fortified at least
with some types instead of doing constantly your manual asserts
- In the end the Meta language codebase is way cleaner than the original
one
The downside is
at least for typescript the maven integration is non existent, there is a
maven clientside plugin which downloads the entire node js chain onto your
machine within a build, but my guess is we do not need to do this
for the apache integration builds, because in the end we just need the js
codebase. We can add special dev profile which enables the client side build
to build the js files.
As for Kotlin, I have not evalauted their javascript stuff but what put me
off was that the website said you have to integrate kotlin.js which is a no
go, but this depends, if kotlin.js just implements their runtime lib we can
probably bypass that. I need to have a serious look at it.
The plus side probably is that it has decent maven support and a perfect
IDE support on the Jetbrains IDEs. (Dont get me wrong the IDE support
of Typescript also is very good on those, I use it on a daily base)
Browser support:
Since mobile browsers are up to rather recent standards nowadays the
problem is the desktop which at least in a corporate environment is moving
really slowly (I wonder corporations are really cautious regarding security
and yet often use stone old often outdated not updated anymore, browsers -
but that is just a snarky sidenote). But still there things have gotten
better.
From a browser support standpoint we probably can strip the support pre
IE9 level which means we finally at least can use a standard ajax api, ajax
multiform requests instead of the iframe hack I had to introduce for jsf
2.2.
I would prefer to have IE11 as baseline, given that most corporations
probably have frozen their environment on a Windows 7 IE11 baseline by now,
but I guess we have to drag at least IE9 with us with some third party lib
support.
By mildly adding small external libraries and avoiding shims
we might get a small query monadish api on top of node.selectorAll like
jquery.
I still would avoid to integrate jquery because we have a core lib
so everything integrated needs to be small. We do not have the luxury of
for instance Prime Faces which can require or bundle a huge lib like JQuery
and JQuery UI.
Also we definitely would need promises (again rip the code out of a proven
shim lib but do not shim it, if it is not supported by the browser
natively)
So my proposal is, after 2.3 I will start with a reimplementation which
might take some time in a saner environment and with a newly defined
baseline.
And once I am done we can drop it in as alternative jsf.js codebase
for the users (we still keep the old one for 2.3)
And for 2.4 upwards we will drop the legacy codebase entirely and just
use the new reworked and cleaned up one.
Just a little bit of food for discussion.
Werner
