I'm a bit lost in all of this. I thought an aim of 5.4 was to make it easy to use widgets from other JavaScript libraries, eg. the huge range of widgets in Ext JS, or any other library that gains traction? Is that still the case?
Geoff On 27/10/2012, at 12:11 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:47:35 -0200, trsvax <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 1. With things like mod_pagespeed now appearing it's not clear to me the >> work of optimizing page load times belongs in the framework. Since there is >> a common solution development time might be better spent elsewhere. > > That's an Apache module and many people don't use it. > >> 2. Abstraction layers require a lot of work and in most cases never really >> solve the problem. If developers are going to provide modules that have >> Javascript enabled components how would they be written? If they only use >> the abstraction layer then Tapestry will end up creating a complete >> Javascript framework. > > Nope, I don't think this is going to happen (creating a complete JavaScript > framework). Otherwise, it wouldn't be an abstraction layer. The Java > equivalent would be creating interfaces and have a jQuery implementation of > it, also a Prototype one. > >> 3. If someone wants to include an existing jQuery component they will need >> the jQuery library anyway and if Tapestry really is going to head down the >> Bootstrap path the Bootstrap components are jQuery components. > > That's the Bob Harner's point. What you said was valid for Prototype years > ago, is valid now, but it may not be valid in the next years. Again, we would > have people complaining that Tapestry uses a JavaScript framework that isn't > the best anymore. > >> I have a large site that is not jQuery and for it backward compatibility is >> very important. What I would like to see is the Javascript part become a >> module and you just pick the one you want and go. > > The abstraction layer would be needed for these modules to be written without > rewriting everything in jQuery and in Prototype. > >> The two javascript modules >> I'd like to see are the old legacy Prototype one and a Bootstrap-jQuery one. >> I don't see any benefit to an abstraction layer on the jQuery side. Many >> people know jQuery and it's well documented. Why introduce a layer that just >> makes things more difficult? > > The abstraction layer is intended to be used mostly by Tapestry itself, > probably component libraries too. Your code using jQuery would work exactly > the same. Of course, people could use the abstraction layer too, but that's > up to them. > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
