tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From RonPiterman <rpiter...@gmx.net>
Subject Re: do we really want dojo so tightly integrated in tapestry?
Date Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:12:28 GMT
Kent, sorry to not have the time right now for testing, I will however 
do it in 1-2 weeks, and report the results.

Kent Tong wrote:
> RonPiterman <rpiterman <at> gmx.net> writes:
>> Its not the download time, its the bootstrapping on each request which 
>> makes things heavy...
> Have you measured the time taken for dojo to bootstrap? That file is 
> only 14K and only defines a dozen of functions and some variables 
> (http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/browser/trunk/src/bootstrap1.js). I
> am not sure this is going to slow down the browser.
>> If one does not need widgets but "just" wants to use EventListener and 
>> async requests, maybe also client side validation, why not let the 
>> programmer/community the ability to choose a JS framework implementation -
> The questions are:
> 1) Is the other JS framework not subjected to the same bootstrap issue?
> 2) Is the effect to fix this issue in dojo larger than that of creating
> & *maintaining* an abstraction layer?
>> I don't have much experience with scriptacuolus but it seems fair enough 
>> to me to use - prototype has also some listener implementation, and as 
>> much as dojo may be supperior, we pay a price for it, which we don't 
>> have to pay... more important: it apears to me to be a solid criteria in 
>> choosing a web framework - for a "normal" site, I find it hard ro 
>> recommend a framework with such a slow responsiveness...
> Is this experience based on the pre-packaged dojo.js or a bare mimimal
> dojo?
> --
> Kent Tong
> Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org

View raw message