> > Yes, so the dependency on ext.js should only be in complicated > > widgets, but ext.js should be the only dependency and not other js > > libraries. This of course leaves open the door for anyone writing > > widgets for tg using other js libraries but the widgets that form the > > core of tg (or TW) should all use ext.js (or the rich client UI js > > library that developers choose, I personally think ext.js is the best > > choice). > > The problem here is that if they need to have more than one library then > they > will have a big library to load -- ext.js -- and another one. > > > We already have this problem with MochiKit today because people rarely > customize their builds and they end up serving the full library (something > like 30 KB compressed or 150 KB uncompressed). Ext.JS is more than 3 times > bigger than that without counting 75 KB of CSS stylesheets. > > Are we *REALLY* willing to make this the default library for people that are > just willing to use a timer and tg_flash? (Of course not that simple, but > you got the idea of the simplest thing one does with MochiKit today...) > > > Yes, most widgets can just depend on jquery but as soon as you do > > something more complicated you'll end up duplicating stuff already > > existing in ext.js or another rich library. So again I agree, simple > > widgets should be standardized on jquery while complicated widgets on > > ext.js. > > Then one has to install both, keep both updated, and optimize his app to > load > both in a way to not impact too much on load time for some complex page. > > > I'm not sure if defaulting to such a huge library as ext.js is a good > idea... > It can be packaged and easily installable as an egg for those who need it, > but I don't see much benefit in having it by default. > > > With regards to jQuery, it incentivates some constructions that I don't like > much but it is a good library. > > > What is the main motivation to change our code from what is tested, working > to > something where we'll have a new JS library, will have to update docs, will > have to rewrite code and will have to repackage? > > > As I said before, I believed that we were removing this from TG and were > making this a "responsibility" of TW.
Hi Jorge, I think I answered your questions on the turbogears-trunk list since Mark suggested we move this discussion there. The post waits for moderation (I just subscribed to that list right now) but should appear soon. Cheers, Daniel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
