I see your point. But I believe that jQuery currently has more active use than shindig's javascript libraries. Also, I don't think using jQuery precludes us from working around problems ourselves if we find need to.
Anyway this was just a thought I had, and I'm not particularly drawn to jQuery over something else. I think that in general, having a solid, widely-used js library to work off of will make our code more maintainable and easier to learn. From: Henry Saputra <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Date: 11/09/2011 01:09 PM Subject: Re: JavaScript libraries and Shindig I am kind of hesitance to add use JQuery as dependency for Shindig client code just because of adding another layer of infra code for developer to worry about. Currently most issues in the Shindig JavaScript code we could just fix it in the code branch. - Henry On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Dan Dumont <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. > > According to the jQuery site: > http://docs.jquery.com/Using_jQuery_with_Other_Libraries > We could do something like: > var $j = jQuery.noConflict(); > which would use $j instead of $ as the JQuery shortcut to prevent compat > issues with another library like prototype. Integrators could then choose > to use the bundled version of jQuery (reassign $j to $), or use another > library of their choosing. We could also provide the option to use a > version of jQuery from a CDN of the integrator's choosing. > > There is a size cost associated with jQuery. I think it clocks in at ~35 > k after minification and gzipping. But I think it could provide some > maintainability benefits and cleaner looking code if we could rely on a > library to abstract out some of the browser specific quirks that currently > exist. We may also be able to offset the size cost of using jQuery by > reducing the size of our utility functions, changing their implementations > to call into jQuery functions that provide the same utility, and leaving > the API there for back-compat. > > > > From: Henry Saputra <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], > Date: 11/08/2011 01:58 PM > Subject: Re: JavaScript libraries and Shindig > > > > Are you saying to include core jQuery library as different namespaces > and refactor the Shindig javascript code to use JQuery instead the > native code? > > - Henry > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Dan Dumont <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'd like to get opinions from the community here on the inclusion of a >> javascript library in shindig (my proposal: jQuery) in order to simplify >> and clean up some of the utility in the js codebase. >> This largely pertains to the CommonContainer code. >> >> I think it could go a long way to simplify some of the implementation > I've >> seen. >> >> There are ways to include a library like jQuery without interfering with >> other js libraries. We load it and alter the shortcut namespace so it >> will not interfere with other frameworks a consumer might be using (such >> as prototype). >> We can even provide the ability to customize the shortcut so that >> consumers may make use of the library already loaded on the page, or, >> change it to use a CDN like google's. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> > > > > >
