peace peace peace, am not trying to critizise anyones project. i am
overwhelmed by what i find in the wicket world everytime
just an opinion about wicket stuffs
i think javascript contrib projects where the javascript library is larger
than say 100KB may not be worth it in some projects, i would
so why not start your own integration project? people who work on those are
scratching their own itch, and to them the download size is probably not an
issue.
-igor
On 9/13/07, Ayodeji Aladejebi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
peace peace peace, am not trying to critizise anyones project. i am
because i am not a javascript developer, really if I was deep into
javascript maybe i will have my own library and do this.
like i said, this is not a critic move so no bashing
On 9/13/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so why not start your own integration project? people who work on
On 9/13/07, Ayodeji Aladejebi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because i am not a javascript developer, really if I was deep into
javascript maybe i will have my own library and do this.
You could try to rally people who can help you with this :-)
I think that it is also a matter of developing enough
well, i think you mix up with wicket-stuff-project size (the size you
download and deploy) and the size you have in the end the user to load.
for example look at wicket-contrib-yui. if you download it, its some
megs big, but it only puts small JS libs to the client using these
actually (there
I've been investigating performance of the wicketstuff-scriptaculous project
quite a bit recently. Scriptaculous is not what I would call a
lightweight javascript package, but the beauty of wicket is that they
automatically gzip javascript files, and can optionally minify the
libraries. This
functionality.
SO to summarize :) are there any thoughts about using a single,
supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from
:) are there any thoughts about using a single, supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
functionality.
SO to summarize :) are there any thoughts about using a single,
supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket
and not lets think about a framework and its
rich
functionality.
SO to summarize :) are there any thoughts about using a single,
supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks
in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e
this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail
.
SO to summarize :) are there any thoughts about using a single,
supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User
there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
,
supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
thoughts about using a single,
supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list
+1
-Original Message-
From: bmarvell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:19 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: JavaScript Frameworks
Sorry,
Again mine is coming from a very front end perspective ie writing JS in a
progressive enhancement style
,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
about using a single,
supported
framework in wicket and moving forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
forward from there?
Cheers,
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24 matches
Mail list logo
