Martin Cooper wrote:
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.
I would definitely agree with you - try to keep within UI theme
boundaries whenever possible, especially when using ajax themes.
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.
Perhaps I should have explained a little better. The action / interface
that was proposed was something like:
List getData();
So, the information in the list would be highly dependent on the feature
being developed. Thus, we could use the attribute names and values (and
possibly walking into more complex values in a similar nature). As the
data is dependent on the feature, and the developer will most likely be
working on the action and the view, I think we would be ok.
--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
