On 3/28/06, Ian Roughley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
The question here is whether the developer should pick one toolkit and run with it, or should be able to pick different widgets that come from different toolkits. Most people seem to want to do the latter, but that is highly problematic. For one thing, few random combinations of DHTML toolkits will work together properly. For another, the browser will end up downloading and evaluating much more code than is really necessary, impacting performance. 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. Yes, a JSON serialiser would be A Good Thing (tm) to have. The hard part, though, is getting people to agree on what you encode in JSON and how. ;-) Without that, you don't have interoperability. -- Martin Cooper 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] > >
