I agree with Chas but unfortunately it sounds like a lot of work to
change. I would be happy if Lift used JQuery for this but then it
would be tied to a specific library. I wouldn't mind but I can see
why Lift folks would.
On Sep 13, 6:00 pm, Charles F. Munat c...@munat.com wrote:
marius d.
On Sep 14, 3:43 am, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
I kinda used the term js file a bit too loosely. It is true that each
page would likely have different functions there and even the same
page on subsequent load would have different content so the file can
not really be cached.
On Sep 14, 7:35 am, Charles F. Munat c...@munat.com wrote:
But we've got a desideratum, anyway. Maybe down the road someone will
have time to look at it.
Thanks for the clarification!
And also enable somebody (myself) take a pause and (re-)learn/
understand many important concepts in the
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Charles F. Munat c...@munat.com wrote:
I, too, would like to be able to move the liftAjax script call to the
bottom of the page.
Open a ticket and I'll see what I can do... it shouldn't be too hard
Chas.
Dustin Whitney wrote:
Hey, I like Lift so in
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
indraj...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sep 12, 7:02 pm, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:34 am, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if we assumed that Lift managed to do all the hard work, we still
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:51 AM, valotas valo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:43 am, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
I kinda used the term js file a bit too loosely. It is true that each
page would likely have different functions there and even the same
page on subsequent
Nothing in Lift the way it exists today would preclude such a setup. Just
as I was able to integrate with Cappuccino (which is all JS-generated view),
it's dead simple to integrate with any other non-markup framework.
The thing that triggered this thread was Lift's insertion of JavaScript into
Just wading into the fray here...
Looking at people who have responded to this thread, they are mainly
people i've not seen on the list before (sorry if your regulars
perhaps i should pay more attention!) and that indicates to me that
general users dont want *any* js in page (either in the head,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.euwrote:
Just wading into the fray here...
Looking at people who have responded to this thread, they are mainly
people i've not seen on the list before (sorry if your regulars
perhaps i should pay more attention!) and
Done
David Pollak wrote:
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Charles F. Munat c...@munat.com
mailto:c...@munat.com wrote:
I, too, would like to be able to move the liftAjax script call to the
bottom of the page.
Open a ticket and I'll see what I can do... it shouldn't be
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Charles F. Munat c...@munat.com wrote:
When you say that direct JS callbacks (i.e. onclick=foo())
outperforms _any_ other approach what is the source for your assertion?
And what do you mean by outperforms? What are the criteria? Are you
talking about speed?
My sites are low traffic mostly, so a fraction of a second isn't that
important to me, but I can see how it might be to you. (Which is not to
say that I don't try to minimize hits to the database, combine files,
minify, etc., all of which are fractional-second improvements, usually.)
I don't
I also think that javascript should go just before the boby's closing
tag. The main reason: Yahoo's YSlow and Google's Page speed both
telling you that is better to have as less scripts as possible and all
of them placed at the end of the page. The optimal would be one
javascript at the end of
On Sep 13, 11:33 am, valotas valo...@gmail.com wrote:
I also think that javascript should go just before the boby's closing
tag. The main reason: Yahoo's YSlow and Google's Page speed both
telling you that is better to have as less scripts as possible and all
of them placed at the end of
A synthetic file sounds good to me and would probably be preferable.
Cheers, Tim
On 13 Sep 2009, at 20:31, marius d. wrote:
That looks a little cleaner but we'll have to look more into it if
we'd want to go on this path. Perhaps accumulate those function into
synthetic js file .. we'll see
I think so too. Does anyone have an opinion against this? I'll
probably have some time this week or next weekend to work on it.
Br's,
Marius
On Sep 13, 2:59 pm, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote:
A synthetic file sounds good to me and would probably be preferable.
Cheers, Tim
+1
I would much prefer it if all JS were in external files (synthetic as
necessary) and simply attached to the DOM via ids or classes. I have
been building my sites this way for years, and I find it the best
practice for reasons already put forth in this discussion.
Chas.
Timothy Perrett
If I understand everything correctly, the proposal is to dynamically
create a js file for each page request to add event handlers?
If this is true, then I'm against the proposal for the following two reasons:
1. Every page will load slower
Since the js file is dynamically create on each
You mean cached by the browser? Isn't that a matter of setting headers, since
it won't change in the session--or will it? Can one app switch dynamically from
JQuery to YUI?
-
Xavi Ramirezxavi@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand everything correctly, the
I kinda used the term js file a bit too loosely. It is true that each
page would likely have different functions there and even the same
page on subsequent load would have different content so the file can
not really be cached.
I'm thinking that instead of:
button
I'm afraid I have to disagree. As a website developer, I've been putting
all my JS into an external file (per page when necessary) for many years
without any problems. Every good JS programmer I know does the same. It
is considered *more* not less robust to put the JS in an external file
and
Is the DOM approach ruled out? I.e., generate a short script tag that is
generated from the events needed to be listened for, which are delegated to a
javascript generator that depends on the library. The actual JS files would be
static.
Maybe I missed where this option was eliminated?
Also,
marius d. wrote:
I'm thinking that instead of:
button onclick=liftAjax.lift_ajaxHandler
('F1029758482780OTA=true',null, null, null); return false;Press me/
button
We could have:
button onclick=liftAjax('F1029758482780OTA')Press me/button
This is not what I had in mind at all. You
This is how we do JavaScript/ExtJS development at my work place, except with
a twist.
We actually have a javascript-only project for a our javascript library.
We use the maven-javascript-tools plugins to create a javascript project
that relies on others (in our case, things like Simile Timeline
Hi Marius,
Ahh yes I see. That's very different from what I originally
understood. Your implementation makes sense.
Thanks,
Xavi
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:43 PM, marius d. marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
I kinda used the term js file a bit too loosely. It is true that each
page would
On Sep 13, 8:00 pm, Charles F. Munat c...@munat.com wrote:
marius d. wrote:
I'm thinking that instead of:
button onclick=liftAjax.lift_ajaxHandler
('F1029758482780OTA=true',null, null, null); return false;Press me/
button
We could have:
button
Well, conciseness is always good. I haven't looked at (and don't have
time to look at) the code that inserts this stuff, so I'll take your
word for it that it's a big undertaking. Lord knows, I don't have time,
so I'm certainly not complaining.
But we've got a desideratum, anyway. Maybe down
This is pretty close to what I'm doing. I have a REST backend (in Lift)
that serves the data, and a separate Ext JS front end (one single page
with a lot of Ext JS) running in a separate Lift app. It's still in
progress and I haven't worked out all the details yet, but I'm very
happy with it
Hey,
If I understand Dustin correctly here he wants unobtrusive javascript.
That is no javascript in the elements but javascript code that hooks
into the dom and attaches events as needed.
I am not familiar enough with the internals of lift's js wrapping to
know how easy it would be to do it
I am not a fan of buttons in the html that don't do anything if javascript
is disabled. To stop them from coming up in a text based browser or
something similar, I've always had the rule for myself that any forms or
buttons dependent on javascript must be inserted by javascript, and
everything
On Sep 12, 8:34 am, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if we assumed that Lift managed to do all the hard work, we still
have a contradictory situation: the body/ being completely devoid of
scripts but still have 'JS loaded at the end of the page'. It still
has to be
I, too, would like to be able to move the liftAjax script call to the
bottom of the page.
Chas.
Dustin Whitney wrote:
Hey, I like Lift so in an effort to improve it I am submitting some
criticism.
Obtrusive javascript:
when I create an ajaxButton I get this html:
button
One nice thing about jquery's events, if done wisely, is they are applied
after the DOM is loaded. With an onclick a button can be clicked and some
ajax call is fired that returns and tries to modify a part of the DOM that
hasn't been loaded. This is especially true if you have lots of
Moving the script import shouldn't be too difficult, we have the lift:tail
element and tail merge (which acts exactly the same as head merge) for just
this sort of problem.
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Dustin Whitney dustin.whit...@gmail.comwrote:
One nice thing about jquery's events, if
Maybe adding javascript event handlers could be delegated to something that
depends on which library is being used?
-
Kevin Wrightkev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Moving the script import shouldn't be too difficult, we have the lift:tail
element and tail
Technically it could (as I implied above) but this can be lucrative
and IMHO the benefits are simply not that big. I'm not saying that
things are nailed down but I'd love to see a list of practical
benefits for Lift to not add event handlers such as on click to the
elements but rather
Dustin Whitney wrote:
Hey, I like Lift so in an effort to improve it I am
submitting some criticism.
Obtrusive _javascript_:
when I create an ajaxButton I get this html:
button onclick="liftAjax.lift_ajaxHandler(quot;F1029758482780OTA=truequot;, null, null, null); return false;"Press
37 matches
Mail list logo
