Le 2012-02-08 à 15:19, Johnny Miller a écrit : > I understand. And I also looked at writing a jQuery Ajax framework but I > didn't get far into it before I realized it wasn't going to be as easy as the > MooTools one. I think the issues were the documentation and the way the Ajax > object worked. Although, I'm sure a better man than me would have no > problems. > > I think the reason people like to mix Ajax Framework and jQuery is because > there are a lot of plugins for jQuery. This is also true for MooTools > (http://mootools.net/forge/). So for me it was the best of both worlds. I > was able to pretty easily copy the functionality out of Ajax Framework that I > needed and then write or use existing plugins. With the benefit being faster > page load times because the user doesn't have to download two JS libraries. > > Anyway, I would be happy donate the MooTools Ajax framework. Should I rename > it to ERSomething? Should I rename the components as well? I just used the > same names as Ajax Framework i.e. AjaxUpdateContainer - should I rename them > to some prefix+component name?
Good question. I guess it would be better to have different names in case people want to mix Prototype and MooTools together. MT good be a good prefix for components and Java classes, and the framework could be MooTools. > Johnny Miller > Kahalawai Media Corp. > www.kahalawai.com > > > > On Feb 8, 2012, at 9:12 AM, Pascal Robert wrote: > >> Personally, I would go with Dojo since it's really made for data-type apps >> (but maybe Dojo is more for REST contexts, not for contexts like the current >> Ajax framework) :-) But the community is asking for jQuery (and almost half >> of the community is already using it, does everyone have their own jQuery >> framework?). >> >> But yeah, if you want to contribute your MooTools framework, I think it >> would be great :-) >> >>> Hi Pascal, >>> >>> I think everyone should give one more pass at MooTools. I know that jQuery >>> is very popular right now but MooTools is designed from an object oriented >>> perspective. So for people like us, who are already using Java, MooTools >>> just feels more natural. If you look at the MooTools documentation >>> (http://mootools.net/docs/core) it shows you how to easily create classes, >>> use inheritance, implement composition, extend with categories et al... >>> Where as jQuery is kind of like a giant collection of scripts that is very >>> useful for people who are more familiar with that style of programming. >>> >>> Here is a very good article (granted biased) article that explains the >>> difference between the two: http://jqueryvsmootools.com/ >>> >>> My two cents, >>> >>> Johnny Miller >>> Kahalawai Media Corp. >>> www.kahalawai.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Pascal Robert wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Looking at the comments and results from the survey, it look like the >>>> biggest priority for 2012 is to have a jQuery framework for WO (for >>>> stateful apps, I think the jQuery framework from Ravi Mendis is stateless >>>> only). >>>> >>>> So, I have to ask: who can work on a jQuery framework? I'm asking because >>>> I need to know if we can finance this task. Of if you already have a >>>> jQuery framework that you made, can you share it with the community? We >>>> can even "buy it" if we need to. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>>> Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) >>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >>>> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/jlmiller%40kahalawai.com >>>> >>>> This email sent to [email protected] >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
