I think we probably have 2 different use cases that need to be covered: 1) Adding a few simple ajax helpers, and some basic javascript stuff 2) Adding rich javascript based interfaces with complex widgets, and all that kind of thing
Case 1 is handled by pretty much all of the libraries, but they aren't all "compatible" mainly because of javascript namespacing issues, and making people download multiple libraries is kind of a bad idea anyway. So we need to choose 1 that we use in the basic widgets. As I see it the candidates are mochikit, jquerry, ext.js and perhaps dojo and yahooui. jquerry is the smallest and tightest, ext.js is the richest and most complete, but it;s very large. It seems that most of case 1 is covered quite well by jquerry, but use case 2 is not covered at all. ext.js covers use case 2 well, but adds considerable download and parse time overhead to those who are part of use case 1. One solution is to use ext.js and jquerry together as this is an explicitly supported configuration of ext.js. However, this adds some documentation overhead to those working in use case 2 with widgets. But since most widgets can just depend on jquerry, and my experience is that most people building rich web applications are going to be writing lots of javascript by hand, I think it's reasonable to standardize on jquerry and include ext.js where nessisary in a way that is known to work fine. In particular this is a question that I think Alberto/ToscaWidgets is going to be handling. What do you all think? On Jan 6, 2008 2:04 PM, Daniel Fetchinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Good point. I think it's about which library should be preferred to > > >> built the more advanced widgets with, like AjaxGrid or AutoCompleteField. > > > > > > But won't these be available through TW only? I thought we were moving > > > widgets code out of TG2 and into TW. > > > > I must admit that I haven't played with TW yet. It seems the base TW > > widgets don't need any JS library, but there are widgets to support > > mochikit and jQuery, is that right? > > > I agree with many of the commenters that tg is about making good > choices by tg developers for app developers but not forcing any choice > too much. Mochikit is great and should be used in simple tasks so > probably it should stay in a vanilla tg install. > > Now if all widget specific things are moving to TW and will completely > decouple from tg then probably what I'm advocating is the development > of a subset of TW that does nothing else then wrapping ext.js widgets. > And this subset of TW should be clearly visible and should be the > "blessed" choice so that users will have something to go with > immediately. > > I'm speaking here from my own experience. I've spent weeks and weeks > reviewing and evaluating JS libraries for rich client user interfaces > (something mochikit is *not* good for) but on the other hand I did not > spend any time reviewing and evaluating development web servers, > templating systems and such because the tg developers already made > these choices for me (cherrypy, kid) which is really a great thing. > > I guess by separating the use cases to (1) mostly non-visual ajax > stuff (2) really rich client UI, it is fair to say that mochikit is > great for (1) but not so for (2). The introduction of a "blessed" JS > library with appropriately wrapped widgets would cater for (2). > > > > > -- Mark Ramm-Christensen email: mark at compoundthinking dot com blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
