Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
Locked
123
123
Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
 
Administrator
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
I'd have to agree, I still feel pretty strongly that we should only have one javascript library in OFBiz.
I've used this tree before on top of prototype: http://weblog.axent.pl/examples/js.drag-drop-tree/ I'm not sure how it compares feature-wise to the dojo tree but I found it met my needs just fine and didn't require any strange html layouts or non-compliant xhtml attributes like dojo does. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 2/06/2010, at 12:42 PM, Anil Patel wrote: > I have mixed feelings. IMO we should use prototype (prototype based UI components), and not use Dojo. > > If we are really not happy with UI plugins in prototype then I'll personally prefer JQuery over Dojo for sure. > > Thanks and Regards > Anil Patel > HotWax Media Inc > Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" > > On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >> Forwarded again :( >> >> This time I removed the links and replaced them by tinylinks >> >> Jacques >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]> >> To: <[hidden email]> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:10 PM >> Subject: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4 >> >> >>> Forwarding, not sure why this did not get through, maybe the links... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]> >>> To: <[hidden email]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:03 AM >>> Subject: Dojo tree 1.4 >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I was discussing with Ankit and Sascha (who, I'm sure you know, greatly helped with Atul on the layered lookups) about new things to improve in the UI. >>>> They were interested by the tree and reported this link http://tinyurl.com/38xrxd5 >>>> >>>> We have already first fruits at http://tinyurl.com/3axfg75 but we use an older (1.2?) version of Dojo and we need 1.4 for new stuff like different icons on each node, drag&drop, etc. >>>> see http://tinyurl.com/37srt6k and you may look for more in pages (I searched only in title) >>>> >>>> Unfortunately this is not only code enhancement as the 1.4 works a bit differently than previous one for trees. So the code related to the OFBiz link above needs a bit of revamping. >>>> >>>> This message to let you know that there will be an effort on the Dojo tree, because I know some don't like to have many js libs in OFBiz. So if you feel we should do otherwise please speak... >>>> For me it's not a problem to have Prototype and Dojo as long as they don't collide. >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >> >> > |
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
Administrator
|
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
|
Administrator
|
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
|
Administrator
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
Administrator
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
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, >> |
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
|
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |