Alex - I definately agree with you, somewhat ;) - if this is a simple
calendar,
or other lightweight widget there is no need to involve an ajax library
download. *Any* ajax library download. But I do think there is a need for an
ajax theme when the user is ready to use one. So how do we deferentiate
between these?
Joe - I think the UI tags are very library agnostic. It was reasonably simple
to add in the dojo support once we had the <ww:a .../>, <ww:div .../>
etc. tags
in place. Dojo just happened to be the initial implementation. We could
definately outline what the core components are (JS widget and ajax
widget) and
the attributes and functionality that is expected from a tag API
standpoint, and
then have different implementations of the tag themes for
implementation. Additionally, when talking about this last month (or
was it longer now?) we
(Ranier, Rene, Alex and Mike) were all thinking in the same vein. One thing
that we wanted to add was an action/inteface that returned JSON so that any
ajax implementation could use the same server implementation to provide list
data.
The question really is do we bundle the libaries and the implementations with
the SAF 2.0 release or should there be a seperate project where the different
library integrations live? Althought we could extract them into a optional
project, I think there is benifit in provide a basic implementation.
/Ian
Quoting Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Joe, I mostly agree with you. What I've been trying to say is that most of
the user will not like to have a big dependency on Dojo for simple
functionality like a calendar component. And I agree, this is my case too. I
would prefere something small and working almost everywhere. We have even
been thinking to add a new AJAX theme based on lighter solutions (a la
prototype). And if this will work, I would almost sure vote for removing the
dependency on Dojo. But this is way to personal :-).
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
>discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because the
>browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from their
ml
>some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
be missing
>in the next versions.
If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
us well to challenge that philosophy.
Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://blog.germuska.com
"You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
-- Robert Moog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
