Opinions wanted

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi,

I dither about some minor points in the jQuery branch and would like to have your opinions.

Should we embed the docs and demos for the extensions (plugins, etc.). I guess so because it's convenient when working without
Internet connection. On the other hand it's a bit heavy.

For now, for some plugins, we put the version in the lib name. This is ok OOTB, but for custom apps users may not notice a plugin
version change and would not change their own decorators. So I wonder if, like Sascha suggested recently, we should not rather have
no version in plugins names.

Thanks

Jacques

[Sascha Rodekamp-3]

Hi,
i find the idea good to store examples along the lib folders, cause as
Jacques said it is easy to have a look in the documentation (when you have
no i-net connection). Furthermore the documentation causes no footprint in
the performance of the system (no memory usage or anything). So i'm fine
with it.

Removing the versions from the plugins helps when we want to update a plugin
(it is easier to make a patch file to update a plugin than replacing the
whole file).
If we uses a version number at the file name we have to check the whole code
for the old version names and change them to the new one ... (more work).
A disadvantage is, that we have to open each file to see which version we
are using. But that's ok for me.

Have a good day
Cheers
Sascha


2010/11/12 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>

> Hi,
>
> I dither about some minor points in the jQuery branch and would like to
> have your opinions.
>
> Should we embed the docs and demos for the extensions (plugins, etc.). I
> guess so because it's convenient when working without Internet connection.
> On the other hand it's a bit heavy.
>
> For now, for some plugins, we put the version in the lib name. This is ok
> OOTB, but for custom apps users may not notice a plugin version change and
> would not change their own decorators. So I wonder if, like Sascha suggested
> recently, we should not rather have no version in plugins names.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>

--
Sascha Rodekamp
    Lynx-Consulting GmbH
    Johanniskirchplatz 6
    D-33615 Bielefeld
    http://www.lynx.de

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Hi Jacques,

my preference is to leave documentation and demos out of the project to keep it cleaner and lighter; I also think that maintaining the version in the file name has some advantages: custom decorators will have to be changed but this is also a good reminder for the developers to check that the custom screens work well with the upgraded libraries.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I dither about some minor points in the jQuery branch and would like to have your opinions.
>
> Should we embed the docs and demos for the extensions (plugins, etc.). I guess so because it's convenient when working without Internet connection. On the other hand it's a bit heavy.
>
> For now, for some plugins, we put the version in the lib name. This is ok OOTB, but for custom apps users may not notice a plugin version change and would not change their own decorators. So I wonder if, like Sascha suggested recently, we should not rather have no version in plugins names.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Sascha, Jacopo,

At revision: 1035463, I finally removed jQuery UI docs and demo. Actually, it was far easier for me than re-adding plugins
docs/demos

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> Hi Jacques,
>
> my preference is to leave documentation and demos out of the project to keep it cleaner and lighter; I also think that maintaining
> the version in the file name has some advantages: custom decorators will have to be changed but this is also a good reminder for
> the developers to check that the custom screens work well with the upgraded libraries.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I dither about some minor points in the jQuery branch and would like to have your opinions.
>>
>> Should we embed the docs and demos for the extensions (plugins, etc.). I guess so because it's convenient when working without
>> Internet connection. On the other hand it's a bit heavy.
>>
>> For now, for some plugins, we put the version in the lib name. This is ok OOTB, but for custom apps users may not notice a plugin
>> version change and would not change their own decorators. So I wonder if, like Sascha suggested recently, we should not rather
>> have no version in plugins names.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Another more important point that makes me wonder is the total removing of Dojo and Prototype in the jQuery branch. Of course, the
branch is intended to be merged. So I guess it will a problem for those who are working with the trunk. On the other hand, I believe
we want to get rid of Dojo and Prototype in the future. At least it's the consensus we got when we decided to create this branch,
and
we have worked much on it since (it's almost finished)...

I think the best answer is to create patch(es?) and to put it in a sub-task under "Query Implementtion - Umbrella Main Task"
(OFBIZ-3814). This sub-task and its patch(es?) will contain the necessary information for a custom project based on the trunk to
not worry about the merge. I'd really appreciate a little help on that tough. I think there are enough persons interested...

TIA

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

> Thanks Sascha, Jacopo,
>
> At revision: 1035463, I finally removed jQuery UI docs and demo. Actually, it was far easier for me than re-adding plugins
> docs/demos
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> my preference is to leave documentation and demos out of the project to keep it cleaner and lighter; I also think that
>> maintaining the version in the file name has some advantages: custom decorators will have to be changed but this is also a good
>> reminder for the developers to check that the custom screens work well with the upgraded libraries.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I dither about some minor points in the jQuery branch and would like to have your opinions.
>>>
>>> Should we embed the docs and demos for the extensions (plugins, etc.). I guess so because it's convenient when working without
>>> Internet connection. On the other hand it's a bit heavy.
>>>
>>> For now, for some plugins, we put the version in the lib name. This is ok OOTB, but for custom apps users may not notice a
>>> plugin version change and would not change their own decorators. So I wonder if, like Sascha suggested recently, we should not
>>> rather have no version in plugins names.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I can't believe, nobody is interested by the future...Please share your thoughts...

Thanks

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

> Another more important point that makes me wonder is the total removing of Dojo and Prototype in the jQuery branch. Of course, the
> branch is intended to be merged. So I guess it will a problem for those who are working with the trunk. On the other hand, I
> believe
> we want to get rid of Dojo and Prototype in the future. At least it's the consensus we got when we decided to create this branch,
> and
> we have worked much on it since (it's almost finished)...
>
> I think the best answer is to create patch(es?) and to put it in a sub-task under "Query Implementtion - Umbrella Main Task"
> (OFBIZ-3814). This sub-task and its patch(es?) will contain the necessary information for a custom project based on the trunk to
> not worry about the merge. I'd really appreciate a little help on that tough. I think there are enough persons interested...
>
> TIA
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> Thanks Sascha, Jacopo,
>>
>> At revision: 1035463, I finally removed jQuery UI docs and demo. Actually, it was far easier for me than re-adding plugins
>> docs/demos
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> my preference is to leave documentation and demos out of the project to keep it cleaner and lighter; I also think that
>>> maintaining the version in the file name has some advantages: custom decorators will have to be changed but this is also a good
>>> reminder for the developers to check that the custom screens work well with the upgraded libraries.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I dither about some minor points in the jQuery branch and would like to have your opinions.
>>>>
>>>> Should we embed the docs and demos for the extensions (plugins, etc.). I guess so because it's convenient when working without
>>>> Internet connection. On the other hand it's a bit heavy.
>>>>
>>>> For now, for some plugins, we put the version in the lib name. This is ok OOTB, but for custom apps users may not notice a
>>>> plugin version change and would not change their own decorators. So I wonder if, like Sascha suggested recently, we should not
>>>> rather have no version in plugins names.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Erwan de FERRIERES]

Le 21/11/2010 23:13, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> I can't believe, nobody is interested by the future...Please share your
> thoughts...
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
+1 on removing..

--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz

[Bilgin Ibryam-2]

Hi Jacques, I didn't see your message because you used the same thread for
jQuery UI docs and demo which was resolved with Jacopo's help :)

I think the whole point of moving to jQuery was to have only one javascrip
library, so we should get rid of prototype and dojo. But the way to do it
should be similar to deprecating methods from the framework: mark the use of
these libraries as deprecated, and keep them up to the next ofbiz release.

WDYT?

Bilgin Ibryam

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Hi Jacques:

IMHO, Prototype, Dojo and jQuery all have their uses. No one library
does or can do it all...

That said, if there are no instances where Prototype and/or Dojo are
being used within the project, it seems kind of pointless to keep them
around.

Just my 2 cents.
Ruth

On 11/23/10 5:32 AM, Bilgin Ibryam wrote:

> Hi Jacques, I didn't see your message because you used the same thread for
> jQuery UI docs and demo which was resolved with Jacopo's help :)
>
> I think the whole point of moving to jQuery was to have only one javascrip
> library, so we should get rid of prototype and dojo. But the way to do it
> should be similar to deprecating methods from the framework: mark the use of
> these libraries as deprecated, and keep them up to the next ofbiz release.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Bilgin Ibryam
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Bilgin, Hans Erwan, Ruth,

Bilgin: yes I kept the same thread as in my mind it was the same concern, maybe not a good idea indeed.

Only 4 persons answered, so I guess others agree that completly removing Dojo/Prototype from the trunk should not be a problem
Actually, it's not so hard as all the OOTB Dojo/Prototype/other scripts features have been replaced by jQuery in the branch.

Custom changes which use them are supposed to be in specific components with their own decorators. So people would just have to
re-add the libs.

Jacques

From: "Bilgin Ibryam" <[hidden email]>

> Hi Jacques, I didn't see your message because you used the same thread for
> jQuery UI docs and demo which was resolved with Jacopo's help :)
>
> I think the whole point of moving to jQuery was to have only one javascrip
> library, so we should get rid of prototype and dojo. But the way to do it
> should be similar to deprecating methods from the framework: mark the use of
> these libraries as deprecated, and keep them up to the next ofbiz release.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Bilgin Ibryam
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks for taking care of concerns separation Ruth (thread subject)!

Jacques

From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]>

> Hi Jacques:
>
> IMHO, Prototype, Dojo and jQuery all have their uses. No one library
> does or can do it all...
>
> That said, if there are no instances where Prototype and/or Dojo are
> being used within the project, it seems kind of pointless to keep them
> around.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
> Ruth
>
> On 11/23/10 5:32 AM, Bilgin Ibryam wrote:
>> Hi Jacques, I didn't see your message because you used the same thread for
>> jQuery UI docs and demo which was resolved with Jacopo's help :)
>>
>> I think the whole point of moving to jQuery was to have only one javascrip
>> library, so we should get rid of prototype and dojo. But the way to do it
>> should be similar to deprecating methods from the framework: mark the use of
>> these libraries as deprecated, and keep them up to the next ofbiz release.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Bilgin Ibryam
>>
>