Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
Locked
123
123
 
|
+1 - I like Prototype, but mostly because we know it well and JQuery was yet the framework that it is today. You're exactly right that Dojo is heavey and Prototype is a library for javascript geeks :) JQuery is likely the best choice on the market right now.
Cheers, Ruppert On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote: > It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over > to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as > a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible > and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one > developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building > the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. > > Anyway a few links for people interested > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks > http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison > > Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run > with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to > making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. > > Sam > > > > On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: >> My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. >> - More code to maintain >> - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? >> - Another API for users to learn >> - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? >> >> Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. >> >> IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. >>> >>> I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating "connector code" in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. >>> >>> That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. >>> >>> While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >>>> Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : >>>>> Hey guys, >>>>> >>>>> i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. >>>>> And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based >>>>> JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to >>>>> test >>>>> and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new >>>>> heavy >>>>> Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) >>>>> >>>>> So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and >>>>> Prototype >>>>> as depricated >>>>> and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in >>>>> the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter >>>>> than Dojo. >>>>> >>>>> Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could >>>>> spend >>>>> my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Hi Sascha, >>>> >>>> I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for >>>> it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. >>>> Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another >>>> every time is not. >>>> Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has >>>> decided ! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >> > |
|
|
Comparision article:
http://blog.creonfx.com/javascript/mootools-vs-jquery-vs-prototype-vs-yui-vs-dojo-comparison-revised -- Ashish On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Tim Ruppert <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 - I like Prototype, but mostly because we know it well and JQuery was yet the framework that it is today. You're exactly right that Dojo is heavey and Prototype is a library for javascript geeks :) JQuery is likely the best choice on the market right now. > > Cheers, > Ruppert > > On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote: > >> It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over >> to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as >> a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible >> and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one >> developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building >> the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. >> >> Anyway a few links for people interested >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks >> http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison >> >> Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run >> with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to >> making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. >> >> Sam >> >> >> >> On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: >>> My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. >>> - More code to maintain >>> - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? >>> - Another API for users to learn >>> - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? >>> >>> Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. >>> >>> IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. >>>> >>>> I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating "connector code" in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. >>>> >>>> That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. >>>> >>>> While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >>>>> Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : >>>>>> Hey guys, >>>>>> >>>>>> i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. >>>>>> And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based >>>>>> JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to >>>>>> test >>>>>> and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new >>>>>> heavy >>>>>> Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and >>>>>> Prototype >>>>>> as depricated >>>>>> and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in >>>>>> the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter >>>>>> than Dojo. >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could >>>>>> spend >>>>>> my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sascha, >>>>> >>>>> I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for >>>>> it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. >>>>> Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another >>>>> every time is not. >>>>> Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has >>>>> decided ! >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sascha Rodekamp-3
Good idea Sascha,
Yes jQuery is much better then Dojo and much faster then Prototype. Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. Sascha Rodekamp wrote: > Hey guys, > > i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. > And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based > JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test > and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy > Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) > > So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype > as depricated > and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in > the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter > than Dojo. > > Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend > my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. > > What do you think? > > Cheers > Sascha > > 2010/6/5 Anil Patel <[hidden email]> > > >> Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype >> framework with similar thing from Dojo. >> >> Thanks and Regards >> Anil Patel >> HotWax Media Inc >> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >> >> On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >> >>> So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some >>> >> Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. >> >>> I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, >>> >> Prototype being mostly an API). >> >>> I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> >>> >>>> >From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with >>>> >> the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the >> >>>>> time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it >>>>> >> resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some >> >>>>> initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I >>>>> >> have no preference for either one. >> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Anil Patel <[hidden email]> >>>>> Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 >>>>> To: [hidden email] >>>>> Cc: "Anil Patel" <[hidden email]> >>>>> Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM >>>>> I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long >>>>> back and in six months because of issues faced we switched >>>>> to using prototype. At that time there were few others in >>>>> comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't >>>>> remember the reasons. >>>>> >>>>> Since then new checkout process was added that uses >>>>> prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo >>>>> because i did not want to upset anybody in community. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>> Anil Patel >>>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword >>>>> "ofbiz" >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I have created a branch >>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 >>>>>> Nothing else for now >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Sascha Rodekamp" <[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jacques ... >>>>>>> jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) >>>>>>> A brunch is a good idea to start working on this >>>>>>> >>>>> project. I think the reason >>>>> >>>>>>> for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that >>>>>>> >>>>> shouldn't be a problem >>>>> >>>>>>> the syntax isn't complicated. >>>>>>> And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo >>>>>>> >>>>> will bring us a big benefit >>>>> >>>>>>> (in my opinion). >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> Sascha >>>>>>> 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sascha, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We should rather use the dev ML for this >>>>>>>> >>>>> thread. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant >>>>>>>> >>>>> to use Dojo? >>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sascha Rodekamp wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. >>>>>>>>>> The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> many really cool new Features which >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> help us to improve the UI. >>>>>>>>>> The Bad thing is, some parts of the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> syntax had changed. That effects many >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arg, I did not thought it will be so much >>>>>>>>> >>>>> trouble :/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>> So that's a lot of work and i can't do it >>>>>>>>> >>>>> on my own ... who volunteer to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> help me ;) ?? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I could help >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First Step is to collect all depending >>>>>>>>> >>>>> issues and than to fix them step >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>> step. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So if we do that we need a branch I >>>>>>>>> >>>>> guess... >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have a nice day >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sascha >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >> http://www.lynx.de >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sascha Rodekamp-3
Yes Sascha,
i am agree with you , jquery is light & more efficient than all other js frameworks. -- Thanks& Regards: Ankit Jain Enterprise Software Developer Hotwax Media Pvt. Ltd. www.hotwaxmedia.com On Tuesday 08 June 2010 07:42 PM, Sascha Rodekamp wrote: > Hey guys, > > i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. > And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based > JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test > and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy > Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) > > So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype > as depricated > and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in > the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter > than Dojo. > > Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend > my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. > > What do you think? > > Cheers > Sascha > > 2010/6/5 Anil Patel<[hidden email]> > > >> Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype >> framework with similar thing from Dojo. >> >> Thanks and Regards >> Anil Patel >> HotWax Media Inc >> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >> >> On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >> >>> So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some >>> >> Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. >> >>> I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, >>> >> Prototype being mostly an API). >> >>> I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "Adrian Crum"<[hidden email]> >>> >>>> > From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with >>>> >> the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the >> >>>>> time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it >>>>> >> resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some >> >>>>> initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I >>>>> >> have no preference for either one. >> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel<[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Anil Patel<[hidden email]> >>>>> Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 >>>>> To: [hidden email] >>>>> Cc: "Anil Patel"<[hidden email]> >>>>> Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM >>>>> I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long >>>>> back and in six months because of issues faced we switched >>>>> to using prototype. At that time there were few others in >>>>> comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't >>>>> remember the reasons. >>>>> >>>>> Since then new checkout process was added that uses >>>>> prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo >>>>> because i did not want to upset anybody in community. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>> Anil Patel >>>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword >>>>> "ofbiz" >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I have created a branch >>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 >>>>>> Nothing else for now >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Sascha Rodekamp"<[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jacques ... >>>>>>> jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) >>>>>>> A brunch is a good idea to start working on this >>>>>>> >>>>> project. I think the reason >>>>> >>>>>>> for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that >>>>>>> >>>>> shouldn't be a problem >>>>> >>>>>>> the syntax isn't complicated. >>>>>>> And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo >>>>>>> >>>>> will bring us a big benefit >>>>> >>>>>>> (in my opinion). >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> Sascha >>>>>>> 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux<[hidden email]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sascha, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We should rather use the dev ML for this >>>>>>>> >>>>> thread. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant >>>>>>>> >>>>> to use Dojo? >>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sascha Rodekamp wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. >>>>>>>>>> The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> many really cool new Features which >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> help us to improve the UI. >>>>>>>>>> The Bad thing is, some parts of the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> syntax had changed. That effects many >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arg, I did not thought it will be so much >>>>>>>>> >>>>> trouble :/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>> So that's a lot of work and i can't do it >>>>>>>>> >>>>> on my own ... who volunteer to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> help me ;) ?? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I could help >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First Step is to collect all depending >>>>>>>>> >>>>> issues and than to fix them step >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>> step. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So if we do that we need a branch I >>>>>>>>> >>>>> guess... >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have a nice day >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sascha >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >> http://www.lynx.de >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Deepak Dixit-2
+1 for JQuery, it might be pain to learn newer tech, but as we recently
start looking into it, we found It has much more easy ways to handle things. Rishi Solanki Manager, Enterprise Software Development HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. Direct: +91-9893287847 http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Deepak Dixit <[hidden email]>wrote: > Good idea Sascha, > > Yes jQuery is much better then Dojo and much faster then Prototype. > > > Thanks & Regards > -- > Deepak Dixit > HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. > > > > > Sascha Rodekamp wrote: > >> Hey guys, >> >> i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. >> And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based >> JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to >> test >> and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new >> heavy >> Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) >> >> So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and >> Prototype >> as depricated >> and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in >> the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter >> than Dojo. >> >> Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could >> spend >> my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Cheers >> Sascha >> >> 2010/6/5 Anil Patel <[hidden email]> >> >> >> >>> Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype >>> framework with similar thing from Dojo. >>> >>> Thanks and Regards >>> Anil Patel >>> HotWax Media Inc >>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" >>> >>> On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some >>>> >>>> >>> Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. >>> >>> >>>> I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but >>>> heavier, >>>> >>>> >>> Prototype being mostly an API). >>> >>> >>>> I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project >>>>> with >>>>> >>>>> >>>> the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the >>> >>> >>>> time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some >>> >>> >>>> initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> have no preference for either one. >>> >>> >>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: Anil Patel <[hidden email]> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 >>>>>> To: [hidden email] >>>>>> Cc: "Anil Patel" <[hidden email]> >>>>>> Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM >>>>>> I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long >>>>>> back and in six months because of issues faced we switched >>>>>> to using prototype. At that time there were few others in >>>>>> comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't >>>>>> remember the reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since then new checkout process was added that uses >>>>>> prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo >>>>>> because i did not want to upset anybody in community. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and Regards >>>>>> Anil Patel >>>>>> HotWax Media Inc >>>>>> Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword >>>>>> "ofbiz" >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have created a branch >>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 >>>>>>> Nothing else for now >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Sascha Rodekamp" <[hidden email]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jacques ... >>>>>>>> jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) >>>>>>>> A brunch is a good idea to start working on this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> project. I think the reason >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> shouldn't be a problem >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the syntax isn't complicated. >>>>>>>> And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> will bring us a big benefit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> (in my opinion). >>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>> Sascha >>>>>>>> 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sascha, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should rather use the dev ML for this >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to use Dojo? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sascha Rodekamp wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. >>>>>>>>>>> The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> many really cool new Features which >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> help us to improve the UI. >>>>>>>>>>> The Bad thing is, some parts of the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> syntax had changed. That effects many >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Arg, I did not thought it will be so much >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> trouble :/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So that's a lot of work and i can't do it >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> on my own ... who volunteer to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> help me ;) ?? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I could help >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> First Step is to collect all depending >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> issues and than to fix them step >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>> step. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So if we do that we need a branch I >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> guess... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Have a nice day >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sascha >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >> http://www.lynx.de >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by samhamilton
+1
> jQuery is simpler, more flexible > and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one > developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building > the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. > true indeed. -- Thanks & Regards Atul Vani Enterprise Software Developer HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ We are the Global Leaders in Apache OFBiz, Google 'ofbiz' and see for yourself. Sam Hamilton wrote: > It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over > to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as > a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible > and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one > developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building > the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. > > Anyway a few links for people interested > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks > http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison > > Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run > with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to > making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. > > Sam > > > > On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: > >> My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. >> - More code to maintain >> - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? >> - Another API for users to learn >> - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? >> >> Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. >> >> IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >> >>> I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. >>> >>> I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating "connector code" in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. >>> >>> That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. >>> >>> While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >>> >>>> Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hey guys, >>>>> >>>>> i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. >>>>> And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based >>>>> JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to >>>>> test >>>>> and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new >>>>> heavy >>>>> Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) >>>>> >>>>> So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and >>>>> Prototype >>>>> as depricated >>>>> and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in >>>>> the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter >>>>> than Dojo. >>>>> >>>>> Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could >>>>> spend >>>>> my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>> Hi Sascha, >>>> >>>> I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for >>>> it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. >>>> Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another >>>> every time is not. >>>> Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has >>>> decided ! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> > > |
Administrator
|
Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far.
I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html From: "Atul Vani" <[hidden email]> > +1 > >> jQuery is simpler, more flexible >> and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one >> developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building >> the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. >> > true indeed. > > -- > Thanks & Regards > Atul Vani > Enterprise Software Developer > HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ > We are the Global Leaders in Apache OFBiz, Google 'ofbiz' and see for yourself. > > > Sam Hamilton wrote: >> It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over >> to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as >> a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible >> and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one >> developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building >> the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. >> >> Anyway a few links for people interested >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks >> http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison >> >> Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run >> with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to >> making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. >> >> Sam >> >> >> >> On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: >> >>> My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. >>> - More code to maintain >>> - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? >>> - Another API for users to learn >>> - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? >>> >>> Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are >>> familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. >>> >>> IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to >>> do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. >>>> >>>> I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating "connector code" >>>> in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too >>>> much effort. >>>> >>>> That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the >>>> third-party library needs. >>>> >>>> While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js >>>> was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hey guys, >>>>>> >>>>>> i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. >>>>>> And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based >>>>>> JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to >>>>>> test >>>>>> and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new >>>>>> heavy >>>>>> Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and >>>>>> Prototype >>>>>> as depricated >>>>>> and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in >>>>>> the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter >>>>>> than Dojo. >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could >>>>>> spend >>>>>> my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>> Hi Sascha, >>>>> >>>>> I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for >>>>> it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. >>>>> Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another >>>>> every time is not. >>>>> Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has >>>>> decided ! >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> >> >> > |
|
|
Good morning guys,
sounds good to me. I will now start implementing a example widget based onjQuery and provide a patch asap. So erveryone can see how jQuery works. Have a nice day. Sascha 2010/6/9 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> > Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. > > I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real > consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third > parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the > other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious > as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets > are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we > use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered > lookups) without issues. > > At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery > with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were > not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. > > So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and > I'm sure we will support his effort! > > Thanks guys > > Jacques > [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz > [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know > now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here > MIT :o) > [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the > serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to > have documentation problems also... Found this link > http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html > > From: "Atul Vani" <[hidden email]> > > +1 >> >> jQuery is simpler, more flexible >>> and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one >>> developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building >>> the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. >>> >>> true indeed. >> >> -- >> Thanks & Regards >> Atul Vani >> Enterprise Software Developer >> HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ >> We are the Global Leaders in Apache OFBiz, Google 'ofbiz' and see for >> yourself. >> >> >> Sam Hamilton wrote: >> >>> It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over >>> to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as >>> a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible >>> and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one >>> developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building >>> the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. >>> >>> Anyway a few links for people interested >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks >>> http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison >>> >>> Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run >>> with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to >>> making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> >>> >>> On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>> My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has >>>> more downsides that it does upsides. >>>> - More code to maintain >>>> - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? >>>> - Another API for users to learn >>>> - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more >>>> complex object oriented features of the libraries? >>>> >>>> Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript >>>> library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the >>>> APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that >>>> benefit. >>>> >>>> IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us >>>> being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a >>>> javascript library and stick with it. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the >>>>> choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I >>>>> recall that it started out with creating "connector code" in selectall.js. >>>>> In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library >>>>> can be swapped out without too much effort. >>>>> >>>>> That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the >>>>> String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library >>>>> needs. >>>>> >>>>> While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a >>>>> separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the >>>>> start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that >>>>> file doesn't match its contents. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey guys, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version >>>>>>> 1.4. >>>>>>> And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo >>>>>>> based >>>>>>> JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> test >>>>>>> and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new >>>>>>> heavy >>>>>>> Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and >>>>>>> Prototype >>>>>>> as depricated >>>>>>> and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better >>>>>>> invest in >>>>>>> the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much >>>>>>> lighter >>>>>>> than Dojo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could >>>>>>> spend >>>>>>> my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sascha, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for >>>>>> it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing >>>>>> charting. >>>>>> Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to >>>>>> another >>>>>> every time is not. >>>>>> Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty >>>>>> has >>>>>> decided ! >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Sascha Rodekamp Lynx-Consulting GmbH Johanniskirchplatz 6 D-33615 Bielefeld http://www.lynx.de |
|
Le 09/06/2010 10:59, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit :
> Good morning guys, > sounds good to me. I will now start implementing a example widget based > onjQuery and provide a patch asap. So erveryone can see how jQuery works. > > Have a nice day. > Sascha > > 2010/6/9 Jacques Le Roux<[hidden email]> Hi Sascha, do you need a branch or something ? Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz |
|
Administrator
|
BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use rather a jquery branch?
Jacques From: "Erwan de FERRIERES" <[hidden email]> > Le 09/06/2010 10:59, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : >> Good morning guys, >> sounds good to me. I will now start implementing a example widget based >> onjQuery and provide a patch asap. So erveryone can see how jQuery works. >> >> Have a nice day. >> Sascha >> >> 2010/6/9 Jacques Le Roux<[hidden email]> > > Hi Sascha, > > do you need a branch or something ? > > Cheers, > > -- > Erwan de FERRIERES > www.nereide.biz > |
|
|
Le 09/06/2010 11:37, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use > rather a jquery branch? > From the different inputs we had on this thread, yes, I think so.. Just wait for the svn to be repaired ! Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz |
|
|
jep another brunch would be great.
Our first steps should not effect the trunk i think;) Cheers 2010/6/9 Erwan de FERRIERES <[hidden email]> > Le 09/06/2010 11:37, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : > > BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use >> rather a jquery branch? >> >> From the different inputs we had on this thread, yes, I think so.. Just > wait for the svn to be repaired ! > > > Cheers, > > -- > Erwan de FERRIERES > www.nereide.biz > -- Sascha Rodekamp Lynx-Consulting GmbH Johanniskirchplatz 6 D-33615 Bielefeld http://www.lynx.de |
|
Administrator
|
I simply renames dojo1.4 in jquery, it's available
Jacques From: "Sascha Rodekamp" <[hidden email]> jep another brunch would be great. Our first steps should not effect the trunk i think;) Cheers 2010/6/9 Erwan de FERRIERES <[hidden email]> > Le 09/06/2010 11:37, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : > > BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use >> rather a jquery branch? >> >> From the different inputs we had on this thread, yes, I think so.. Just > wait for the svn to be repaired ! > > > Cheers, > > -- > Erwan de FERRIERES > www.nereide.biz > -- Sascha Rodekamp Lynx-Consulting GmbH Johanniskirchplatz 6 D-33615 Bielefeld http://www.lynx.de |
|
|
Cool thanks Jacques ... i'will have a look later and provide a first
"testing" patch. Cheers Sascha 2010/6/9 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> > I simply renames dojo1.4 in jquery, it's available > > > Jacques > > From: "Sascha Rodekamp" <[hidden email]> > jep another brunch would be great. > Our first steps should not effect the trunk i think;) > > Cheers > > 2010/6/9 Erwan de FERRIERES <[hidden email]> > > Le 09/06/2010 11:37, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >> >> BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use >> >>> rather a jquery branch? >>> >>> From the different inputs we had on this thread, yes, I think so.. Just >>> >> wait for the svn to be repaired ! >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Erwan de FERRIERES >> www.nereide.biz >> >> > > > -- > Sascha Rodekamp > Lynx-Consulting GmbH > Johanniskirchplatz 6 > D-33615 Bielefeld > http://www.lynx.de > > > -- Sascha Rodekamp Lynx-Consulting GmbH Johanniskirchplatz 6 D-33615 Bielefeld http://www.lynx.de |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a
framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the GWT-EXT "threat" because users continue to demand an "application" feel when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone else looked seriously at Vaadin? Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. > > I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a > real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All > those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit > frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you > find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very > disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's > not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party > calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without > issues. > > At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also > Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that > anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. > > So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, > and I'm sure we will support his effort! > > Thanks guys > > Jacques > [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz > [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we > know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we > want, here MIT :o) > [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the > serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is > known to have documentation problems also... Found this link > http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html [hidden email] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com |
|
|
After a 2 second glance it looks interesting enough to bookmark. Based on my current wish list I should be able to comment further in 2012 :-)
Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/06/2010, at 1:18 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: > I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a > framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. > > Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the > GWT-EXT "threat" because users continue to demand an "application" feel > when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if > somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction > necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under > the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone > else looked seriously at Vaadin? > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. >> >> I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a >> real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All >> those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit >> frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you >> find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very >> disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's >> not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party >> calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without >> issues. >> >> At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also >> Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that >> anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. >> >> So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, >> and I'm sure we will support his effort! >> >> Thanks guys >> >> Jacques >> [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz >> [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we >> know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we >> want, here MIT :o) >> [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the >> serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is >> known to have documentation problems also... Found this link >> http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html > -- > Ean Schuessler, CTO > [hidden email] > 214-720-0700 x 315 > Brainfood, Inc. > http://www.brainfood.com > |
smime.p7s (3K) |
|
Hey Guys,
From wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaadin "Vaadin utilizes Google Web Toolkit for rendering the resulting web page. While Google Web Toolkit operates only client-side (i.e. a browser's JavaScript engine) – which could lead to trust issues – Vaadin adds server-side validation to all actions. This means that if the client data is tampered with, the server notices this and doesn't allow it." So its not really a counter to the "threat", its a way to make life "easier" to get into GWT.... Sam On 16/06/2010 09:52, Scott Gray wrote: > After a 2 second glance it looks interesting enough to bookmark. Based on my current wish list I should be able to comment further in 2012 :-) > > Regards > Scott > > HotWax Media > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > On 16/06/2010, at 1:18 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: > >> I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a >> framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. >> >> Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the >> GWT-EXT "threat" because users continue to demand an "application" feel >> when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if >> somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction >> necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under >> the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone >> else looked seriously at Vaadin? >> >> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. >>> >>> I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a >>> real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All >>> those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit >>> frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you >>> find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very >>> disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's >>> not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party >>> calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without >>> issues. >>> >>> At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also >>> Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that >>> anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. >>> >>> So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, >>> and I'm sure we will support his effort! >>> >>> Thanks guys >>> >>> Jacques >>> [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz >>> [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we >>> know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we >>> want, here MIT :o) >>> [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the >>> serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is >>> known to have documentation problems also... Found this link >>> http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html >> -- >> Ean Schuessler, CTO >> [hidden email] >> 214-720-0700 x 315 >> Brainfood, Inc. >> http://www.brainfood.com >> > |
|
|
Damn, I should have opted for the 3 second glance!
Thanks Sam, good to know. Regards Scott On 16/06/2010, at 2:32 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote: > Hey Guys, > > From wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaadin > "Vaadin utilizes Google Web Toolkit for rendering the resulting web > page. While Google Web Toolkit operates only client-side (i.e. a > browser's JavaScript engine) – which could lead to trust issues – Vaadin > adds server-side validation to all actions. This means that if the > client data is tampered with, the server notices this and doesn't allow it." > > So its not really a counter to the "threat", its a way to make life > "easier" to get into GWT.... > > Sam > > > On 16/06/2010 09:52, Scott Gray wrote: >> After a 2 second glance it looks interesting enough to bookmark. Based on my current wish list I should be able to comment further in 2012 :-) >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> >> On 16/06/2010, at 1:18 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: >> >>> I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a >>> framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. >>> >>> Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the >>> GWT-EXT "threat" because users continue to demand an "application" feel >>> when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if >>> somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction >>> necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under >>> the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone >>> else looked seriously at Vaadin? >>> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. >>>> >>>> I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a >>>> real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All >>>> those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit >>>> frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you >>>> find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very >>>> disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's >>>> not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party >>>> calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also >>>> Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that >>>> anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. >>>> >>>> So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, >>>> and I'm sure we will support his effort! >>>> >>>> Thanks guys >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz >>>> [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we >>>> know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we >>>> want, here MIT :o) >>>> [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the >>>> serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is >>>> known to have documentation problems also... Found this link >>>> http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html >>> -- >>> Ean Schuessler, CTO >>> [hidden email] >>> 214-720-0700 x 315 >>> Brainfood, Inc. >>> http://www.brainfood.com >>> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by samhamilton
Vaddin is similar to the Eclipse RAP as both operates on server side
though RAP has a well established API and RAP applications can also work as Desktop applications (theoretically) without code change and concept is called single sourcing. Thanks, Raj On 16/06/10 08:02, Sam Hamilton wrote: > Hey Guys, > > > From wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaadin > "Vaadin utilizes Google Web Toolkit for rendering the resulting web > page. While Google Web Toolkit operates only client-side (i.e. a > browser's JavaScript engine) – which could lead to trust issues – Vaadin > adds server-side validation to all actions. This means that if the > client data is tampered with, the server notices this and doesn't allow it." > > So its not really a counter to the "threat", its a way to make life > "easier" to get into GWT.... > > Sam > > > On 16/06/2010 09:52, Scott Gray wrote: > >> After a 2 second glance it looks interesting enough to bookmark. Based on my current wish list I should be able to comment further in 2012 :-) >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> >> On 16/06/2010, at 1:18 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: >> >> >>> I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a >>> framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. >>> >>> Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the >>> GWT-EXT "threat" because users continue to demand an "application" feel >>> when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if >>> somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction >>> necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under >>> the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone >>> else looked seriously at Vaadin? >>> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>>> Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. >>>> >>>> I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a >>>> real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All >>>> those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit >>>> frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you >>>> find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very >>>> disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's >>>> not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party >>>> calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also >>>> Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that >>>> anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. >>>> >>>> So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, >>>> and I'm sure we will support his effort! >>>> >>>> Thanks guys >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz >>>> [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we >>>> know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we >>>> want, here MIT :o) >>>> [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the >>>> serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is >>>> known to have documentation problems also... Found this link >>>> http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html >>>> >>> -- >>> Ean Schuessler, CTO >>> [hidden email] >>> 214-720-0700 x 315 >>> Brainfood, Inc. >>> http://www.brainfood.com >>> >>> >> > > |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Ean Schuessler
http://markmail.org/message/g777vmrachizruef
Sam and Raj made good points too... Jacques From: "Ean Schuessler" <[hidden email]> >I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a > framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. > > Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the > GWT-EXT "threat" because users continue to demand an "application" feel > when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if > somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction > necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under > the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone > else looked seriously at Vaadin? > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. >> >> I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a >> real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All >> those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit >> frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you >> find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very >> disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's >> not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party >> calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without >> issues. >> >> At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also >> Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that >> anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. >> >> So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, >> and I'm sure we will support his effort! >> >> Thanks guys >> >> Jacques >> [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz >> [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we >> know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we >> want, here MIT :o) >> [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the >> serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is >> known to have documentation problems also... Found this link >> http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html > -- > Ean Schuessler, CTO > [hidden email] > 214-720-0700 x 315 > Brainfood, Inc. > http://www.brainfood.com > > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |