Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. What it really comes down to, I think, is two different methods to tackle the same problem. I like your initiative and enthusiasm and it's nice to see someone else out there who sees a need for organization with JavaScript.
My *opinion* that it isn't for jQuery rests in the fact that although your mvc model is more structured, it isn't as concise and as geared toward rapid development as jQuery is. I am not saying people should use what I wrote, or start a framework war. I am just stating, more or less, my opinion. I myself don't believe there exactly needs to be a model, controller and view *for javascript*. I do however, believe JS should be separated into multiple files and with things like DUI.stream (Digg UI Streams), this could easily become more commonplace very soon. I'd love to talk with you about my views toward JavaScript and MVC, but I'm a little pressed for time at the moment. Much good could come out of this and I would be excited to collaborate on this as I really believe that you have some great points. Feel free to email me anytime. Cheers, Trey On Apr 29, 2:49 am, Justin Meyer <justinbme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tres, > Besides plugining your own framework is there a reason why you don't > think JMVC is for jQuery? You yourself even express the needed for > tighter control of jQuery and have gone as far as building your own > tool. > > At it's center I a proposing a standard way of organizing the only > things a JavaScript application actually does: > > Respond to events > Request data / manipulate services/ Ajax > Wrap the service data > Update the DOM. > > Why do you think JavaScriptMVC is over doing it? Because it is more > than one file? That is actually a huge advantage ... it allows > developers to add only the functionality they need without having to > worry about compression. > > If you are going to share a 'harsh opinion' please provide reasons for > why the above Controller and View wouldn't be useful. If you can, I > think you'd be the first person who doesn't like them - especially > controller ... I mean, just look at that syntax ... your function > names are what they respond to ... and who doesn't like event > delegation? In fact, I'll take the pepsi challenge and promise that > with JMVC's tools that I can create easier to understand and modify > code, faster, than with jQuery alone. > > John has posted some valid points about how some of JMVC's features, > namely class, could invade the core. However, I'm not sure if even > John has worked on projects as large and complex as those that have > prompted JMVC. In these projects, a wiki of suggestions is not going > to be enough to refine a large group of limited skill developers code > so that it is maintainable. > > However, for the (lucky?) few that find themselves losing the reins of > apps that make Gmail look small, there will be an jQuery based > solution for them. I'm hoping to find a few who are willing to help > me perfect the tools and techniques. > > If you do want to explore these techniques I'm super pumped to work > with you. Just let me know what you think jQuery needs. However, > more than one file is a good thing :). > > @DBJ 2-4 is all done in JMVC. Please let me know if you have any > comments on the above syntax. > > On Apr 28, 8:07 am, tres <treshug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Justin, > > > I think you have some good points about what you are trying to > > achieve, but personally, I don't think jMVC is for jQuery. I would be > > interested in collaborating on some projects such as this in the > > jQuery realm, though. I have done a bit of development on something > > similar (although, it's one JS file ;) ) and have recently implemented > > the execution of javascript files withing the context of part of the > > DOM as well as (previously) lazy loading, caching and namespacing > > while taking bits from ruby on rails, zend as well as my personal php > > mvc framework. > > > Sorry. Harsh opinion, but I wouldn't be me without it. If your > > interested on working on some projects (as well as other people), I'd > > love to hear back from you. > > > -- > > Trey > > > On Apr 28, 4:40 pm, Justin Meyer <justinbme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If anyone out there is still interested ... I just put up the first > > > alpha. It's pretty slick. You can find it here: > > > >http://javascriptmvc.com/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads > > > > I re-mapped JMVC's Controller, View, and Class to work nicer with > > > jQuery. And, compression works with the latest env.js. > > > > Here's how class basically works: > > > > $.Class.extend("Name.Of.MyClass",{ > > > static : function(){return 'static' }},{ > > > > init : function( val){ > > > this.val = val; > > > } > > > proto : function(){ return this.val } > > > > }) > > > > Name.Of.MyClass.static() // -> static > > > new Name.Of.MyClass(''proto').proto() // -> proto > > > Name.Of.MyClass.extend("NewClassName",{},{}) //-> NewClassName > > > > Here's how a very simple 'show content' controller could work: > > > > $.Controller.extend("ShowController",{},{ > > > 'a click' : function(el, ev){ > > > var id = el.attr('href'); //get id we want to show > > > this.element.find(id ).toggle(); //find it inside the 'wrapped' > > > element > > > ev.preventDefault() //prevent browser from auto-scrolling there > > > } > > > > }) > > > > You could add this to any collection of a's like the following: > > > > <div id='mycollection'> > > > <a href='#place_to_open'>Open</a> > > > <p id='place_to_open'>Blah Blah</p> > > > </div> > > > > $('#mycollection').show_controller(); > > > > Honestly ... what could be better than that!!!! I mean really. That > > > has got to be the nicest way of defining and grouping functionality > > > just about ever. > > > > A few more things about this..... > > > > When you 'add' show controller to mycollection it does the following: > > > > adds the class name 'show_controller' to mycollection making it easy > > > to figure out what controllers are responding to mycollection just by > > > inspecting the dom. > > > > puts the controller in the element's data so you can get it like: > > > > $('#mycollection').data('show_controller') > > > > And remove all functionality like: > > > > $('#mycollection').data('show_controller').destroy(); > > > > You can also have 'setup' functionality. Lets say we wanted to hide > > > everything in our element that matched some selector, we could add an > > > init function: > > > > $.Controller.extend("ShowController",{},{ > > > init : function(element, hideSelector){ > > > this._super(element); //sets the element to delegate from and > > > this.element > > > this.element.find(hideSelector).hide() > > > }, > > > 'a click' : function(el, ev){ > > > var id = el.attr('href'); //get id we want to show > > > this.element.find(id ).toggle(); //find it inside the 'wrapped' > > > element > > > ev.preventDefault() //prevent browser from auto-scrolling there > > > } > > > > }) > > > > now we could call it like: > > > > $('#mycollection').show_controller('p'); > > > > How fantastic is that. This can be better for jQuery that the jersey > > > we gave John. > > > > And if you wanted to extend the functionality and make it your own: > > > > ShowController.extend("MyShowController",{},{ > > > 'a click' : function(el, ev){ > > > this._super(el, ev) > > > el.text( el[0].style.display == "" ? "hide" : "show" ) //says > > > hide or show > > > } > > > > }) > > > > Oh, I almost forgot views: > > > > $(".some_thing").append({view '/url/to/view', data: {message: > > > "hello_world"}}) > > > > in /url/to/view.ejs > > > <h1><%= message %></h1> > > > > prepend, after, before,replace,text,html all work too. > > > > Now that I got a rough draft ... I'm really looking for people who > > > want to take this project to the next level with me. Give me a shout > > > if you are interested and what you think -> justinbme...@gmail.com > > > > John, let me know if there is a better place for this. It's very > > > jQuery related, but don't want to be spamming anyone. > > > > My next step is hardening the API and getting rhino and selenium > > > testing working. > > > > On Mar 1, 7:33 am, tres <treshug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I realized after I made my last post (#57) I realized that you > > > > described almost exactly what I had just built :). Sort of like > > > > finding money behind the couch! > > > > Try:http://code.google.com/p/jquery-plugin-dev/source/browse/trunk/jquery.... > > > > > Anyways, I am not trying to say MVC is over-engineering in practice as > > > > I do understand the need for organization, code-reuse and convention > > > > (I've authored my own PHP5 MVC framework), but currently I think that > > > > with JavaScript, there needs to be a happy medium between performance, > > > > organization and convention. Separating these out into at least 3 > > > > server calls per page, plus extra processing time that comes from > > > > dispatching and routing, has the potential for a bit of overhead, > > > > especially in a large application. > > > > > UI, being as dynamic as it is, calls for many different situations > > > > where you might respond to an event by posting a form via ajax, and > > > > when that is done manipulating the DOM accordingly. As simple as that > > > > seems, more often than not something will vary with the way JavaScript > > > > will have to handle the user's last interaction. Sometimes, simple > > > > conventions and organization is less work and easier to maintain. The > > > > simplest answer is usually the best answer (within reason, though). > > > > But that is just my opinion. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Trey > > > > > On Feb 27, 6:03 am, Justin Meyer <justinbme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > @Trey, > > > > > You created a plugin to deal with the exact problems we have been > > > > > talking about :). > > > > > > Have you developed a JS centered application, something that could > > > > > be considered a 'Thin-Server-Architecture' app? > > > > > > When you build the entire HTML structure client side, a lack of a JS > > > > > template (View) is brutal. > > > > > > If you only have raw services to work from, something that can wrap > > > > > and provide context to the data is essential. > > > > > > Although widget.js comes close to a 'controller' anyway, wouldn't it > > > > > be great if you can make plugins like: > > > > > > $.plugin('todo',{ > > > > > init : function(element, options) { > > > > > //initialization code on the element > > > > > //uses something in 'data' as 'this' for state, instead of > > > > > this=element > > > > > this.created = true; > > > > > } > > > > > "a.destroy click" : function(element, event){ > > > > > //uses event delegation to call without actually having to setup > > > > > delegation > > > > > this.destroyed = true; > > > > > }, > > > > > destroyed : function(){ return this.destroyed } // a normal function > > > > > on the plugin > > > > > > }) > > > > > > Widget.js could just see which functions look for events and setup > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
