:msj...@gmail.com]
>>Sent: donderdag 7 april 2011 2:13
>>To: users@wicket.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: Wiquery experiences
>>
>>I both agree and disagree with the aforementioned comments.
>>
>>I don't think anyone would disagree that writing JavaScript
>
>-Original Message-
>From: msj121 [mailto:msj...@gmail.com]
>Sent: donderdag 7 april 2011 2:13
>To: users@wicket.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Wiquery experiences
>
>I both agree and disagree with the aforementioned comments.
>
>I don't think anyone wou
>-Original Message-
>From: joseph.pac...@gmail.com [mailto:joseph.pac...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Live Nono
>Sent: donderdag 7 april 2011 13:47
>To: users@wicket.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Wiquery experiences
>- does wiquery support being used from a wicket ajax request nic
Ernesto, Hielke
thanks a lot for your answers
At the time I looked at wiquery, it was for some specific task. This
task didn't include explorating whether a full blown jquery/wicket
integration framework would fit our needs. This is quite a task on its
own imho, and there the lack of documentatio
ted most often something like "document.onready(.);".
>>
>>
>> There are other libraries around that do about the same as WiQuery, and
>> perhaps better or faster, but my rant above is to clarify why the project
>> exists and why people
ot;document.onready(.);".
>>
>>
>> There are other libraries around that do about the same as WiQuery, and
>> perhaps better or faster, but my rant above is to clarify why the project
>> exists and why people are using it. And the best part of it is: you d
WiQuery, and
> perhaps better or faster, but my rant above is to clarify why the project
> exists and why people are using it. And the best part of it is: you don't
> have to use it...
>
> Regards,
>
> Hielke
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Borges [mai
On 07 Apr 2011, at 09:54, Hielke Hoeve wrote:
> Maarten says:
> Writing what should be JavaScript in your wicket Java code is quite
> out-of-place, and generally all you need to do is place your code where it
> belongs, in a .js or your markup.
>
> I wonder if he ever really used WiQuer
exists and why people are using it. And the best part of it is: you don't
> have to use it...
>
> Regards,
>
> Hielke
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Borges [mailto:bruno.bor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 7 april 2011 0:32
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
&g
Bruno Borges [mailto:bruno.bor...@gmail.com]
Sent: donderdag 7 april 2011 0:32
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Cc: Maarten Billemont
Subject: Re: Wiquery experiences
Most of the things you want to do with jQuery, you don't need a library for.
I totally agree with Maarten
Bruno Borges
www.brunoborges
I both agree and disagree with the aforementioned comments.
I don't think anyone would disagree that writing javascript from wicket or
using a decorator to write javascript is wrong. In fact quite often I may
not know the id of an object until run-time and I may want the javascript to
run on a spe
Most of the things you want to do with jQuery, you don't need a library for.
I totally agree with Maarten
Bruno Borges
www.brunoborges.com.br
+55 21 76727099
"The glory of great men should always be
measured by the means they have used to
acquire it."
- Francois de La Rochefoucauld
On Wed,
Unless WiQuery has matured a *lot* lately and the code has been cleaned up
significantly, I can't recommend it, personally.
Writing what should be JavaScript in your wicket Java code is quite
out-of-place, and generally all you need to do is place your code where it
belongs, in a .js or your ma
13 matches
Mail list logo
