RonPiterman <rpiterman <at> gmx.net> writes: > Its not the download time, its the bootstrapping on each request which > makes things heavy...
Have you measured the time taken for dojo to bootstrap? That file is only 14K and only defines a dozen of functions and some variables (http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/browser/trunk/src/bootstrap1.js). I am not sure this is going to slow down the browser. > If one does not need widgets but "just" wants to use EventListener and > async requests, maybe also client side validation, why not let the > programmer/community the ability to choose a JS framework implementation - The questions are: 1) Is the other JS framework not subjected to the same bootstrap issue? 2) Is the effect to fix this issue in dojo larger than that of creating & *maintaining* an abstraction layer? > I don't have much experience with scriptacuolus but it seems fair enough > to me to use - prototype has also some listener implementation, and as > much as dojo may be supperior, we pay a price for it, which we don't > have to pay... more important: it apears to me to be a solid criteria in > choosing a web framework - for a "normal" site, I find it hard ro > recommend a framework with such a slow responsiveness... Is this experience based on the pre-packaged dojo.js or a bare mimimal dojo? -- Kent Tong Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
