-- roland <[email protected]> wrote (on Thursday, 30 June 2011, 11:13 AM -0700): > > "I think that the other methods (render, addJavascript, addOnLoad, > captureJavascript, etc) are very important" > > True, but that has nothing to do with jquery itself.. > > Perhaps a headJs/headCss helper is more in place here. And if you want to it > real proper you can consider a Zend_Js component which abstracts the known > frameworks out there (for specific ondomready code etc.) > > Offtopic; > Was jQuery a well-thought-out descision in the first place? I personally > favor PrototypeJS - it's more in line with ZF/OOP - but that's a non-issue > if a Zend_Js_Framework interface becomes available :')
jQuery support was community-led, _after_ Zend partnered with Dojo to provide direct integration between the two projects. FWIW, Dojo is a _lot_ more in line with practices we use in ZF OOP than Prototype -- I'd argue Prototype is almost the exact opposite, tbh, as it tends to either overload the JS object model or favor declarative styles over OO styles. (Dojo is very object-oriented, and "plays well" with the JS object model, ensuring that it doesn't trample over existing prototypes. Additionally, the module support is very similar to ZF's component structure, and dojo.require is a very intuitive analog to PHP's require_once.) BTW, we offer headScript() and headLink() helpers already, which may provide the functionality you're looking for when you suggested the "headJs/headCss" helpers above. This makes it fairly trivial to include your own or favorite JS and CSS libraries/toolkits/frameworks/scripts on an ad-hoc basis. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead | [email protected] Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc -- List: [email protected] Info: http://framework.zend.com/archives Unsubscribe: [email protected]
