On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Andrew Jaquith <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dirk -- > > Taking a quick peek at both WRO4J and JAWR, I like WRO4J more. It > appears to require just one servlet filter, which isn't great but > isn't too bad either. JAWR requires much more configuration. > > Yep, WR04J looks preferable. I also has great css features, which may allow for better skin handling. > In contrast, it seems WRO4J would support a key goal: breaking the > JavaScript files into chunks. For example, the AJAX "quicksearch" is > used only by SearchBox.jsp. That JS code should probably go into > either a classpath dir or a parallel tree hierarchy that mirrors the > Java package structure. WRO4J doesn't have JAWR's the ability to > inject the JS and CSS code directly into the JSP via JSP tags, but > that is ok. > > I do agree that breaking up the js in smaller pieces (and probably also the css) is a key advantage. But the example you give is maybe not the most relevant. The SearchBox.jsp will be included in all pages rendered by jspwiki, since it is part of the header frame of each page. The only negative aspect I see, is the (small) runtime overhead WR04J may introduce when rendering pages for the first time. (composing and compression becomes runtime) But I assume that should be an acceptable cost. dirk
