iain duncan schrieb: > On Wed, 2008-26-03 at 06:54 -0300, Jorge Godoy wrote: >> Em Wednesday 26 March 2008 04:39:50 Christoph Zwerschke escreveu: >> >>> From this point of view, it is important that we choose one JS lib to >>> be used for widgets so that we can start building the standard widget lib. >> I think the jQuery is the way to go now... MochiKit is taking too long to >> get >> a new version and as you already said, it shouldn't grow more interesting >> things. > > Bob has said clearly that growing MochiKit is not a big priority right > now because it already does what he wants. That's cool, and props to him > for building it, but the fact that it is not under active development is > definitely keeping away *new* users. So I think it would be a very poor > decision for us to keep using it as an integrated component, it will > come across that we are using "dead components" even though we know this > is not true. > > Experts who know and love MochiKit on the other hand will not be > hindered by a default swap out. It's a marketing decision I guess. > > I also have been really impressed with John Resig's (sp? jQuery lead ) > attitude and I think it aligns well with the TG attitude and philosophy, > which was a major reason for me to switch to TG in the first place.
I already created a tgMochiKit-project in the SVN a while ago, which TG11 currently depends on. For TG11, I would certainly recommend that the existing tgWidgets become a separate module & this module depends on tgMochiKit. Then we are freed of the dependency. Diez --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
