Karl Guertin wrote:
> On 12/12/06, Jonathan LaCour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You could even have it generate a cached version that
>> gets run through a JavaScript packing tool.
>
> The problem with this is that unless the extraction is done on a
> site-wide basis, you'll have to re-download
On 12/12/06, Karl Guertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm interested in dojo's experimental javascript linker.
So I did a bit of testing to see what was up with this. The good news
is that it compiles cleanly (yay!) and it seems to work on the test
cases. The bad news is that the current version
Ian Charnas wrote:
> I realize that I'm moving off-topic, but I think that a CherryPy filter
> (now called a 'hook') is the place to do javascript compression (read:
> removing comments and whitespace, changing variable names to
> single-letters) and also (of course) gzip compression. A CherryPy
On 12/12/06, Jonathan LaCour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could even have it generate a cached version that
> gets run through a JavaScript packing tool.
The problem with this is that unless the extraction is done on a
site-wide basis, you'll have to re-download the same set of core
component
On Dec 12, 7:27 am, Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's true. From the tests I've been reading lately, making fewer
> requests to the server has a bigger impact on the client-side
> performance than most anything else.
I've found that to be true as well. Even with keep-alive, the co
Kevin Dangoor wrote:
>> However, I'm not sure of the net benefit of this... surely total page
>> size will drop, but I've seen many places that recommend joining all
>> JS (and CSS) into a single file for lower load on the server... I
>> guess a "mochikit_full" will keep everyone happy :)
>
> Tha
On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Alberto Valverde wrote:
> However, I'm not sure of the net benefit of this... surely total page
> size will drop, but I've seen many places that recommend joining all
> JS (and CSS) into a single file for lower load on the server... I
> guess a "mochikit_full" will ke
+1 on this. Although it's more work, if it's going to really be
framework-independent then we need to support at least some of the
major javascript kits.
-ian
On Dec 11, 2:40 pm, Alberto Valverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:47 AM, Lee McFadden wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think th
On 12/12/06, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I guess it was added: http://mochikit.com/doc/html/MochiKit/Selector.html
Wonder how I managed to miss that...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Jorge Godoy wrote:
> There was an implementation of that on the MochiKit mailing list
>
I guess it was added: http://mochikit.com/doc/html/MochiKit/Selector.html
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
I'll pitch in my opinions:
On 12/11/06, Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dojo has more features than any other JavaScript toolkit that I've come
> across (it also has the infrastructure to support that -- flexible build
> system, new inline documentation tool). Perhaps it's slower, I ha
On Dec 12, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Jorge Godoy wrote:
>> MochiKit's bigger, if you're using an all-in-one MochiKit.js, but
>> MochiKit's
>> also modular if you want to use it that way.
>
> It is hard to use it modularly with our current implementation...
> If we need
> it our widgets will call the
Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TurboGears 2.0 will be 100 eggs by the time we're done with this )
I don't mind. setuptools downloads everything that is required :-)
> Luckily, tgsetup.py will make it one install. We'll definitely need
> to have a script to provide an offline in
Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MochiKit 1.4 (with either the Scriptaculous port or Karl's newer Animator
> library) seems to do just about everything the others (proto+Scriptaculous,
> jQuery, moo) do. jQuery has the CSS selector thing, but if it's truly useful
> I'd imagine that Bob
On Dec 11, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Alberto Valverde wrote:
> So now my plan for action is:
>
> 1) new ToscaWidgetsMochi egg with the mochikit widget
> 2) new ToscaWidgetsJQuery egg with the jQuery widget and wrappers for
> the cool accordions, tabs, bells and whistles.
> 3) js_interface.core.EventAware
On Dec 11, 2006, at 2:08 AM, Max Ischenko wrote:
>
>
> On 12/10/06, Ian Charnas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the accordion in jquery any better than
> the accordion in mootools? Is scriptaculous' lightbox any better than
> jquery's graybox? Because we can't provide them all so that people
>
On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:47 AM, Lee McFadden wrote:
>
> I think that if ToscaWidgets are to be truly framework independant
> then the core widgets shouldn't use a JS library at all.
This is more or less what I've been thinking about as I've meditated
the issue more carefully...
How about not i
On 12/10/06, Ian Charnas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is the accordion in jquery any better than
> the accordion in mootools? Is scriptaculous' lightbox any better than
> jquery's graybox? Because we can't provide them all so that people can
> use whichever they want for their application, I th
18 matches
Mail list logo
