i'm not able to give you a deep insight answer on this, but rather what i picked up on this topic:
@choosing one major JS framework: i guess the core-devs didn't want to bet all their money on a single horse (except maybe if it's their own ;) ). then also some have a preference for a specific JS framework, others for another one, so which one should be chosen? decisions aren't only grounded on hard facts. and not every license is compatible with ASL2.0 (damn license issues). @dedicated devs supporting their JS framework: while this (outsourcing) may sound good at first sight, when it comes to getting a certain bug fixed or a wicket-specific feature added will probably not be that much fun. and i'm not even talking about waiting for a stable version to be released. what if a new version gets released that fixes a major bug but breaks other stuff? having control over something that lives in the core of wicket (meaning the wicket project) is rather crucial, i think. of course this also means putting a lot of effort into it (wicket-ajax.js has about 1900 loc). i guess matej and igor could elaborate more on this. please, anybody correct me if i got it wrong ;) gerolf On 9/5/07, bmarvell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello all, > > This is my first post so please be gentle ;) > > I'm a user interface developer (no Java) working on what will inevitably > be > a fairly heavy Ajax wicket project. After looking at a number of Ajax > examples and pre built widgets I have to say I'm a little puzzled! Why > does > wickets core JS framework not use one of the main JS frameworks that are > available such as jQuery, Dojo or Prototype? I believe you have a hand > rolled version of mootools (although I may be wrong). Do the Wicket core > team plan on supporting and enriching this hand rolled framework alone? > Surely it would make more sense to choose one of the main JS frameworks > that > have dedicated teams of devs supporting it? > > Also I've found that Ajax widgets in wicket seem quite "here and there" in > their implementation. Some demos use prototype, some use YUI (a datepicker > > for example). Doesnt this go against what JS frameworks are trying to > provide? Choosing a decent framework such as jQuery or Prototype will give > the developer a solid toolkit on which they can build, so extra components > > such as datepickers or custom widgets can be applied as "Plugins". > Sticking > to one framework reduces hits to the server, bandwidth, load and > processing > times all of which imho are good things. > > My worry at the moment is that the demos in wicket are very "lets get it > working on the frontend" 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-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] > >
