Tim, Please don't construe my concerns as personal criticisms. I very much want to see your ajax contribution available in the code base, thus my suggestion of the sandbox. Using a sandbox alongside the approach in FAQ 21 on the old wiki allows the core business application to remain stable (and improve stability where needed) and allow those who wish to benefit from the added functionality.
The NoScript firefox extension is the 5th most popular extension for Firefox. Having websites that work with Javascript turned off is not an approach to appease Luddites. I think this is a fairly normal demand throughout the ecommerce world or else you would see many more sites using Echo2 style frameworks (Echo2 is simply beautiful, hugely functional and easy to relatively easy to develop with and would be even more so with a widget esque style approach, however it renders only an html and body tag, no other html). You don't see Echo2 style sites in abundance because most companies want to be able to reach an audience regardless of their Javascript security preference. This is just coming up now because it would seem no one in the community develops with JS turned off. The same answer applies when you consider that only recently pages in ecommerce have been fixed to render correctly in IE. Just because it's just now being discovered, does not mean we should ignore it. --- Tim Ruppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And btw, the old cart, used JavaScript all the time. > Why is this > just coming up now? Why don't we figure out a > parallel solution for > other people who want to turn of JavaScript - > instead of holding > everyone back? > > My 2cents > > On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > > > Chris, JavaScript is ingrained in just about > anything that submits > > forms anymore. I could understand saying > something like this about > > Flash - however my mind is changing on that as > well - but saying > > that you have to be able to manage something as > complicated as the > > feature set that OFBiz employs without JavaScript > is almost like > > saying - not everyone is off of Netscape 4.x and > we need to set the > > bar _that_ low for our CSS/HTML standardization. > > > > My vote for this is to move forward, not hang > back. JavaScript, as > > much as I'm not a huge fan, is a reality in todays > world - and the > > use of of DOES NOT make the code bug filled. > > > > Cheers, > > Tim > > -- > > Tim Ruppert > > HotWax Media > > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > > > o:801.649.6594 > > f:801.649.6594 > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Chris Howe wrote: > > > >> Tim, > >> > >> To your post > >> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-510#action_12458496 > >> > >> I would want to see it degrade. The fact that > SVN > >> OFBiz does not degrade should not be support to > >> introduce more code that follows a poor pattern. > The > >> current state of OFBiz not being able to add to > cart > >> when JS is turned off needs to be reported as a > bug > >> and fixed. > >> > >> Wanting to see this degrade should especially be > true > >> for a functionality of "Anonymous" checkout. > This > >> means you're wanting to sell product to random > people. > >> So, if you're wanting to sell to random people, > you > >> would want to lower the barriers as far as > possible > >> for them to use your site. Good web surfing > practice > >> is to white list JS for sites that you trust. > This is > >> especially true in corporate environments. > >> > >> So to summarize, my two cents would be to report > the > >> add to cart bug to JIRA, fix OFBiz's SVN of this > >> pattern and degrade the JS in the anonymous > checkout > >> patch. But to quickly see this kind of > functionality > >> into OFBiz, I would prefer to see it added to a > >> sandbox so that others could help work out these > >> peculiarities. > >> > >> > >> --- Tim Ruppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >>> I would certainly love to see the highly useful > >>> Anonymous Checkout > >>> Process example used in OFBiz - at least until > >>> someone else comes up > >>> with a good reason to remove Dojo and go to a > >>> different front end > >>> framewok. Does anyone have any real objections > to > >>> doing this in > >>> light of the fact that no one has another > example > >>> _and_ that the > >>> checkout process is unnecessarily tedious? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Tim > >>> -- > >>> Tim Ruppert > >>> HotWax Media > >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > >>> > >>> o:801.649.6594 > >>> f:801.649.6594 > >>> > >>> > >>> On Dec 15, 2006, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Here are my two cents about this interesting > >>> thread: > >>>> > >>>> 1) the Ajax toolkit's license must be fully > >>> compatible with the > >>>> OFBiz license > >>>> 2) even if it's a good thing to try to find one > >>> official Ajax > >>>> toolkit for OFBiz now and finally get this ball > >>> running, I think we > >>>> should do this but also review the decision > (and > >>> the results we'll > >>>> get with the adopted framework) in 2-4 months > from > >>> now and possibly > >>>> return on it; I mean that we should keep an > >>> open-minded approach > >>>> and also consider new solutions (or criticism > to > >>> the adopted > >>>> toolkit) since I think that in the Ajax world > the > >>> effects of the > >>>> 'software darwinism' > >>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/ > >>>> glossary.html#SoftwareDarwinism) still are not > >>> mature > >>>> > >>>> Jacopo > >>>> > >>>> A. Zeneski wrote: > >>>>> I'll let this thread run a little while longer > >>> before we say to > >>>>> have a > >>>>> full official vote. As of right now, it > appears > >>> most people are > >>>>> looking > >>>>> at Dojo, and that is fine with me. > >>>>> It seems that most of these toolkits do the > same > >>> thing, so to me its > >>>>> just a matter of making a decision so I can > push > >>> forward with my > >>>>> work. > >>>>> As for being more active on the lists, sorry I > >>> have been MIA for so > >>>>> long. I've been involved in a lot of custom > (non > >>> open source) work > >>>>> as of > >>>>> late and apologize for not being around. I > will > >>> do my best to be > >>>>> here as > >>>>> much as possible. Thanks! > >>>>> Andrew > >>> > >>> > > > >
