tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julien HENRY <henr...@yahoo.fr>
Subject RE : RE: Prototype vs. JQuery vs. Dojo 0.9 vs. ???
Date Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:02:46 GMT
@Ben: Do you think about something like GWT? I mean
programming JavaScript in Java.

Components (especially AJAX ones) will certainly use
various existing JavaScript libraries. I think the
main issue is "what about T5 core components?". Should
they use a specific library (without preventing
additional components for using their own)?

Don't know what could be the best solution... sorry.

--- Ben Sommerville <ben@bulletproof.com.au> a écrit :

> I've been mulling on this topic for a while since
> I'm working
> (intermittently) 
> on a project that uses JQuery & Tap5.
> 
> I would love it if Tapestry core was not coupled to
> any particular
> javascript 
> library & could also be used without any javascript
> at all.
> 
> Obviously to do this we'd need to introduce an
> abstraction/indirection
> layer
> for the parts of tapestry that may use javascript. 
> The two approaches I
> see
> are:
> a) Define a java api for invoking/using/generating
> javascript that
> Tapestry
>    core uses, then create modules for each
> javascript library 
>   (as Joost suggested) 
> b) Define an javascript api that Tapestry invokes
> then create
> implementations
>   of that for various javascript libraries
>    (as Andreas suggested)
> 
> My preference is the first approach for a couple of
> reasons:
> - it forces a strict separation.   Tapestry core
> never directly constructs
> javascript so there is no chance it will use
> functions/etc from a
> particular
> library
> - it means that there can be a lot more freedom on
> how the javascript is 
> written.  e.g. field validations could be
> accumulated & written out as a 
> JSON data type, added directly to elements via
> css/custom attributes or
> accumulated via function calls (as is done
> presently).
> - tapestry core makes no assumptions about the
> client side environment.  I
> 
> can see this being a benefit when dealing with other
> platforms such as
> mobile phones.
> 
> On the downside it may be harder to construct a good
> java api that covers
> all the possibilities. However that is no reason not
> to try! :)
>  
> 
> cheers
> Ben
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andreas Andreou [mailto:andreoua@gmail.com]
> On Behalf Of andyhot
> > Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2007 1:58 PM
> > To: Tapestry development
> > Subject: Re: Prototype vs. JQuery vs. Dojo 0.9 vs.
> ???
> > 
> > I think you're misunderstanding my intentions :)
> > 
> > Here are the facts the way i see them:
> > - Tapestry needs some js functions for its own
> use, hence tapestry.js
> > - I do NOT want to force users (not even myself)
> to go through 
> > tapestry.js - they should be able to
> > use the library they want to
> > - I do NOT want to force users to have to load
> another library simply 
> > because tapestry.js needs it
> > 
> > And here's where i'd be heading at:
> > - Plan js usage in such a way that alternatives to
> 
> > tapestry.js (such as 
> > tapestry-yui.js or tapestry-jquery.js,
> > or even tapestry-donothing.js) are easy to write
> and even 
> > easier to include
> > 
> > For the record, i'm close to the
> tapestry-donothing.js step for T4.
> > 
> > Joost Schouten wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I see huge potential for build in AJAX with
> tapestry. 
> > Component reloading is
> > > something which wasn't too hard to implement.
> But I would 
> > not like to be
> > > locked in, or have the framework of choice
> included even if 
> > I don't need it
> > > (love your script loading feature btw).
> > >
> > > I am a big fan of making my own choices in this
> area. 
> > Martin Reurings
> > > recently posted about this in the user group:
> > > 
> >
>
http://www.nabble.com/T5:-using-DOJO--t4368411.html#a12869068
> 
> > I strongly
> > > agree and would love to see this kind of
> granularity. 
> > Making a tapestry.js
> > > as a wrapper for any framework seems more a
> confinement 
> > than an addition.
> > > I'd rather see a clean tapestry module without
> any client 
> > side scripting and
> > > potentially one or more modules using the
> framework of choice.
> > >
> > > We already had to do some cutting to have
> Tapestry leave 
> > the scripting to
> > > us. I hope Tapestry won't make the same mistake
> a lot of 
> > JSF implementations
> > > have made.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Joost
> > >
> > >
> > > We have just stripped T5 completely of all it's
> javascript 
> > as it was causing
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andreas Andreou
> [mailto:andreoua@gmail.com] On Behalf 
> > Of andyhot
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:46 PM
> > > To: Tapestry development
> > > Subject: Re: Prototype vs. JQuery vs. Dojo 0.9
> vs. ???
> > >
> > > In my mind there's only one correct answer for
> Tapestry to this:
> > > nothing and everything!
> > >
> > > ext is looking great these days, yui is ...
> yahoo, dojo 
> > 0.9-1.0 is sooo 
> > > improved
> > > and prototype is ... the good old prototype -
> and who knows 
> > what's to come
> > >
> > > If anyone's been looking at my recent 4.1
> commits, i've set 
> > to abstract 
> > > all dojo calls through
> > > the tapestry object - and i've been able to do
> this by 
> > introducing just 
> > > 6-7 more functions in it.
> > > And i can now replace dojo with other libraries
> - i expect 
> > a few more 
> > > technical challenges, but
> > > it should be straightforward to work
> > >
> > > So, perhaps this would prove as a guide for T5
> as well
> > >
> > >
> > > Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> > >   
> > >> I've been having some fun wrapping my brain
> around JQuery.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not fully certain its a great fit however.
> > >>
> > >> For hand-tooled web pages, maybe traditional
> JSPs, it 
> > would be perfectly
> > >> good.
> > >>
> > >> But it's really built around identifying
> elements that 
> 
=== message truncated ===



      _____________________________________________________________________________ 
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail 

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


Mime
View raw message