A good way to compare frameworks IMHO http://dev2dev.bea.com/pub/a/2006/11/exploring-ajax.html
Jacques ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Ballantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:30 PM Subject: RE: Ofbiz featuring Google Ajax? > David, > > Yes, it is GPL. > > DoJo is BSD on the other hand and sounds similar. > > Kind regards, > > Andrew Ballantine > > -----Original Message----- > From: David E Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 December 2006 21:32 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Ofbiz featuring Google Ajax? > > > > This sounds pretty cool. Just to make it clear though, if it is GPL > licensed we can't include it in OFBiz nor can we include code that > relies on it or uses it in OFBiz. > > -David > > > On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Cameron Smith wrote: > > > Just to contribute to this discussion, we are moving in the > > direction of using the ZK framework (potix.com). It has the same > > dual licensing framework as MySQL. > > > > Note that this is a step beyond simply "using Ajax" inside a > > basically normally page-by-page framework. It creates a much more > > "desktop" model of development. The key reasons we are jumping to > > this kind of model are: > > 1. Avoids the mish-mash of technologies and syntax which most web > > projects have (JSP + JSTL + Struts + DHTML + Prototype) for > > example. One of the thins I most like about OFBiz (backend) is > > that to code entities and business logic, you can spend most of > > your time thinking about the data model, logic flow and > > understanding the problem domain. Actually coding the service is > > fairly straightforward, and doesnºt even require Java knowledge > > (although Java is always there if you need it). Unfortunately, > > after trying out the OFBiz frontend framework, we found it still > > rather a mish-mash, albeit better organized. Widgets, screens, > > forms, FTL, beanshell, scattered around various directories. > > In ZK, you basically code in a very consistent XML language, and > > beanshell. Optionally, you can define complex components in Java, > > there are many plugin points. So we can reuse our developer's > > existing Java knowledge. > > > > 2. Nicer to look at, and facilitates making more user-friendly UIs, > > which is one area where OFBiz still has a long way to go. > > > > 3. Facilitates reuse of components across your application (if you > > are careful about it). > > > > 4. MAY be more performant because there is less network traffic, > > and less needless reprocessing of most of the page (menus, headers > > etc), by both browser and server, every time you click a wee button. > > > > In technical terms, yes it requires installation of some servlets, > > listeners etc. in your webapp but this to me is reasonable. They > > are all standard J2EE components which I know how to configure and > > secure. > > > > There IS a case for centralizing some of these services across all > > OFBiz JVM, if you use ZK in multiple webapps, but then you could > > say that about the OFBiz control servlet as well. There is always > > some tradeoff between modularization and centralization. > > > > In terms of compatibility, it DOES depend on a more recent version > > of Beanshell but I do not believe this issue will be around too > > long (see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-528) > > > > The other very similar alternative to ZK, which we also > > investigated, is: > > http://www.openlaszlo.org/ > > > > A very similar architecture, and very well-documented. The big > > stumbling block was that it requires the browser to have Flash > > plugin, of a certain version, etc., whereas ZK is purely DHTML- > > based. Laszlo have been saying that DHTML support is coming "soon" > > but in fact they have been saying this for a while. All of the > > other frameworks (DOJO, prototype, rico, etc.) have the drawback > > that they do one or two things, and have their very own syntax and > > configuration peculiarities. ZK may not be best of breed in any of > > these areas, but it is no slacker, and has the advantage of a > > consistent approach to everything. > > > > Anyway, we are currently converting a 32bit client-server product > > to use ZK frontend + OFBiz backend, I will keep yous all informed > > of how it goes. > > > > cameron > > > > P.S. I am not in any way a representative of Potix Software, I am > > merely summarizing the outcomes of my findings so far, with the > > community > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Sayoke Shome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 December, 2006 6:17:53 AM > > Subject: RE: Ofbiz featuring Google Ajax? > > > > > > I haven't worked much on DOJO (found it little confusing), but if > > Ofbiz > > community is looking for a tested and free framework for Ajax then > > Might > > I suggest DWR framework. The only disadvantage is, it comes with > > its own > > servlet. This has to be incorporated in Web.xml for web-app. But it > > would make Ajax implementation child's play. > > > > But after working on Ajax in Ofbiz for couple of months I feel we can > > make the most of it if we use naked Ajax code. It will then exploit > > the > > MVC architecture of Ofbiz to fullest and no third party servlet > > will be > > required. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > > > > > Sayoke Shome | eCommerce Framework Developer | ENSIA | BIPL, sector V, > > salt lake | mobile 0.99031.80520 | > > > > "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge > > without > > integrity is dangerous and dreadful." > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Ruppert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:28 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: ofBiz featuring Google ajax? > > > > > > > > Walter, there's actually a lot of discussion on this topic going on > > > > on the dev list as we speak. There are competing "standards" out > > > > there and we're all trying to come to some consensus about what > > > > direction to take the project. > > > > > > > > We currently have demos in JSON, Google Web Toolkit and Dojo (and I > > > > know there are lots of other ones going on with other companies) - so > > > > I'm confident that we'll get to a good place. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tim > > > > -- > > > > Tim Ruppert > > > > HotWax Media > > > > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > > > > > > > o:801.649.6594 > > > > f:801.649.6594 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Walter Vaughan wrote: > > > > > > > >> I just read in that Google Ajax has been released under the Apache > > > >> 2.0 license. I know that Si and a few others are working on > > > >> integrating a few ajax features into the project, but it might be > > > >> cool to have a bulletpoint like "features the Google(r) Web Toolkit > > > >> (tm)"... > > > >> > > > >> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Walter > > > > > > > > > > > > ====================================================================== > > ====================================================== > > > > Tech Mahindra, formerly Mahindra-British Telecom. > > > > Disclaimer: > > > > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary > > and confidential and subject to the Tech Mahindra policy statement, > > you may review at <a href="http://www.techmahindra.com/ > > Disclaimer.html">http://www.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html</a> > > externally and <a href="http://tim.techmahindra.com/ > > Disclaimer.html">http://tim.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html</a> > > internally within Tech Mahindra. > > > > ====================================================================== > > ====================================================== > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http:// > > uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/586 - Release Date: 13/12/2006 > 18:13 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/586 - Release Date: 13/12/2006 > 18:13 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/586 - Release Date: 13/12/2006 > 18:13 > > > > ***************************************************************** > This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service > *****************************************************************
