I'm with Thiago on this one. The abstraction layer is a real benefit as demonstrated by Dimitri's request to ditch jQuery in favor of vanilla.js. The answer now simply is to write the required connectors and use vanilla.js. I know of no other server-side framework offering this kind of functionality.
Uli On Mon, May 11, 2015 20:59, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > On Fri, 08 May 2015 17:36:07 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hls...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> so this is very late in the game but I was just wondering how much >> better >> tapestries client-side support could be if it just simply standardized >> on >> jQuery and gave up on the abstraction layer. Thoughts? > > -1 from me. I like the abstraction layer very much. I think the project > has been burned twice by using a JS framework directly (Dojo in T4, > Prototype in T5), so, specially with native JavaScript functions covering > more and more of what we use jQuery and Prototype for (what Dmitri called > vanilla JS), I think using any framework directly out-of-the-box is a bad > idea. We already have the abstraction layer anyway, so why not keep it? > Another downside would be a huge gap in backward compatibility, another > problem Tapestry already suffered a lot in the past. > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer > http://machina.com.br > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
