Incidentially, this article may help comparing the various solutions around: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/javascript-library
On 6/27/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Newbie question alert... > > > > I am a very experienced web developer, but am trying to wrap my brain > > around all the AJAX/JS frameworks/libraries sprouting up over the last > > year (with which I have zero experience). I finally have the need to > > get into the game and am trying to make an informed decision. In > > searching this forum, I have gleaned a few nuggets about which I would > > appreciate some validation/elaboration: > > > > - According to Bob, Dojo is the only comparable toolkit to MK in terms > > of quality. This is based in part on respect of the global namespace > > and not prototyping/mangling the base js object. He has listed > > script.aculo.us, openrico, and prototype (some of which I have played > > with and thought were good in terms of the end result) as culprits. > > What about Yahoo UI? They use namespaces -- not sure about > > object.prototyping... > > I haven't looked much at Yahoo UI, but from what I understand it's > largely just UI stuff. MochiKit mainly covers everything else. I've > seen people use both. In its current state, MochiKit has been mostly > developed by people who have UI needs that don't need a widget > library or have widgets that are too customized for general usage. > > > - What's the story between MK and Dojo? All of the chatter I have > > seen > > in the forum history is about using them together, porting calls from > > one to the other, etc. No one seems to be saying "Use MK instead of > > Dojo." Bob in one thread mentioned that "if Dojo had existed in > > present form 9 months ago MK may not have gotten started" > > (paraphrasing). I have seen Alex Russel pop up in here from time to > > time too. There's a lot of overlap, but Dojo obviously fills some > > holes where MK is lacking (notably UI widgets). But they both do > > basic > > DOM, event handling, Ajax support, etc. Why try to use both? What's > > the real strategy here? > > Dojo is a solid framework developed by a very skilled group of > people. Choosing MochiKit vs. Dojo is mostly a style decision, but > MochiKit does have better documentation coverage so it may be easier > to pick up. This mailing list is also a hell of a lot easier to keep > up with than the Dojo list :) > > If you do need substantial features that are in Dojo that are not in > MochiKit, and the rest of your needs are met by Dojo, then there's no > good reason to use both. If you need features from both, then use > both. I don't know what kind of answer you're hoping to get here... > > If you need some features from MochiKit that aren't in Dojo, then it > shouldn't be too hard to extract that portion of MochiKit and port it > to use Dojo's base functionality instead of depending on the rest of > MochiKit. There's already been cross-pollination in that direction, > and they'd probably take patches for more. MochiKit is license > compatible, and I've signed a contributor agreement and everything so > it shouldn't be a big deal. > > > - All of the existing MK stuff looks really great, but what's the best > > strategy for including the widgets that everyone needs? Is that where > > pulling in parts of Dojo is the best strategy? What about YUI? > > From a > > purely widget point-of-view, YUI actually looks to be quite robust > > right now, and that their stuff is in use on yahoo.com inspires a lof > > of trust. Bob mentioned script.aculo.us issues, but I see you guys > > are > > porting it (undoubtedly "fixing" it at the same time). Is the > > intention for that to be the base of a true MK widget library in a > > future release? What's the best widget strategy for today? > > It seems more popular to use MochiKit and Yahoo UI together than > MochiKit and Dojo, but both have definitely been done before. > > MochiKit 1.4 should be functionally equivalent to whatever is in the > script.aculo.us stack at the time of release, but there's not much > else to it. There's no plan to become the "ultimate widget library", > this is simply an effort by MochiKit developers to make it better > suit their particular needs. MochiKit is effectively just a bunch of > extracted code from real web applications, I really don't want to see > it grow functionality that nobody is using. > > -bob > > > > > -- troels --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MochiKit" group. To post to this group, send email to mochikit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
