Dirk, Good thoughts. I agree entirely.
Terry On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 12:44 +0200, Dirk Frederickx wrote: > Hi Terry, > > Maybe JS is esoteric for many of the jspwiki folks ... as the core of > jspwiki is around java. But by incorporating the brushed-template as > default, we of-course also added some extra js weight to jspwiki. > Alternatively jspwiki could choose to go java all the way and eg go > for GWT kind of technology. Personally I think JS is pretty > accessible (and readable) and shoudl not cause to much of a burden to > java-developers ---- but of course who am I to say so :-) > > > v2.7.x is still in alpha, and we are ironing out the last bugs. > Section Editing was added, and still caused issues wrt to adding > comments. And sometimes bugs only come to the surface in strange > ways. > > > The approach I try to take wrt to JS is the following: > > > 1) JSPWiki should be able to run without JS active; you'll only miss > some ''not-essential'' functionality, such as presentational > enhancements, table sorting, etc. > Browser specific stuff runs on the client. All gui stuff relies on > html and css to a maximum extend. > > 2) The JS is *supposed* to be written in a modular way so it should be > rather straighforward to selectively remove the parts of the js which > you think you don't need or are bothering you. > This requires of course JS-know-how. And some knowledge how the > jspwiki JS is hooked into JSPWiki, and interacts with the back-end. > And I know, documentation could be improved :-) > > > I agree that in some cases the current JS weight of the CORE jspwiki > is to much. Especially imho some of the dynamic styles should not be > part of the core jpswiki package. I would like to see a kind of > pluggable approach to allow users to add js-pieces they need. (similar > to server side plugins) > > > > dirk > > On 8/20/08, Terry Steichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been wondering for some time if JSPWiki hasn't become somewhat too > > dependent on esoteric Javascript code for its core functionality. Dirk > > has done a wonderful job - of that, there's absolutely no doubt. When > > the template logic works (as it normally does quite well), it's a marvel > > to behold. > > > > But when it doesn't, it's sometimes a nightmare to figure out. I'm OK > > figuring out Java, servlets, HTML and the like - even with its poor > > documentation, I can eventually figure out the innards of JSPWiki code. > > But the increasingly complex Javascript will often does me in. > > > > On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 21:51 +0200, Dirk Frederickx wrote: > > > > > Janne, > > > > > > The 2nd textarea is inserted to allow section-editing. > > > Just 'kill' jspwiki-eidt.js to get rid of it. (eg. commenting the > > > last line of jspwiki-edit.js will do the trick -- remove > > > window.addEvent ....) > > > > > > > > > dirk > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Janne Jalkanen > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 19 Aug 2008, at 22:35, Janne Jalkanen wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>> Not because of ACLs, but because request.getParameter() is returning > > > >>> the > > > >>> *page content without edits*. This should NOT be happening. > > > >> > > > >> Looks like our Javascript is inserting an extraneous <textarea> > > > >> without an > > > >> id, and putting the edit content in it. Ugh. Hard to debug. > > > > > > > > I would really like to understand what is going on with the editor. > > > > Why are > > > > there two textareas created programmatically? > > > > > > > > /Janne > > > > > >
