OFBiz › OFBiz - Dev

Re: svn commit: r560854 [1/4] - in /ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs: ./ builder.js controls.js dragdrop.js effects.js prototype.js scriptaculous.js slider.js sound.js unittest.js validation.js

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

19 messages Options

Scott Gray

Re: svn commit: r560854 [1/4] - in /ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs: ./ builder.js controls.js dragdrop.js effects.js prototype.js scriptaculous.js slider.js sound.js unittest.js validation.js

I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months back?
Are we intending to use multiple libraries?

Regards
Scott

On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Author: apatel
> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
> New Revision: 560854
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
> Log:
> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
>
> Added:
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
>
>
>

David E Jones

JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz (was: Re: svn commit: r560854 [1/4])

This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!

The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will need to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we might even want to keep both... I don't know though...

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?

-David

Scott Gray wrote:

> I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months back?
> Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Author: apatel
>> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
>> New Revision: 560854
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
>> Log:
>> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
>>
>> Added:
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
>>
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
>>
>>
>>
>

Vikash Anand-2

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz (was: Re: svn commit: r560854 [1/4])

Dear All;
I have one more contender to add in the list and that is DWR. DWR
is built on top of Ajax and built using Direct Remoting will help us to get
things using Ajax way with less/no dependence on UI libraries that others
provide. This will help us to write simple Java methods to execute
functionalities and very user friendly to write either java code, JS code
and XML files.

Please let me know your coments. I will be working on it's integration and
will try to provide a sample/patch soon.

Thanks and Regards;
Vikash Anand.

On 7/30/07, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
> pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at
> this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>
> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and
> DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will need
> to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we might even
> want to keep both... I don't know though...
>
> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
>
> -David
>
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
> > I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months
> back?
> > Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
> >
> > Regards
> > Scott
> >
> > On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Author: apatel
> >> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
> >> New Revision: 560854
> >>
> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
> >> Log:
> >> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
> >>
> >> Added:
> >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
> >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
> >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
> >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
> >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
> >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
> >>
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
> >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
> >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
> >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Scott Gray

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz (was: Re: svn commit: r560854 [1/4])

In reply to this post by David E Jones

Hi David

I guess my main concern was that this wasn't discussed beforehand and it was
also committed by someone without framework privileges, I don't have any
objections to the commit itself but I just worry about the impression it
gives to current and potential committers about what is acceptable practice.

Regards
Scott

On 30/07/07, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jacopo Cappellato

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

In reply to this post by David E Jones

As a side note, it would be useful to specify the release number of
these libraries: I don't see it in the commit log, however I'd prefer to
add it as a suffix to the folder name (e.g. prototypejs-1.0)

Then we have to add these libraries to the LICENSE file as well.

Jacopo

David E Jones wrote:

>
> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
> pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at
> this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>
> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and
> DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will
> need to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we
> might even want to keep both... I don't know though...
>
> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
>
> -David
>
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months
>> back?
>> Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Author: apatel
>>> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
>>> New Revision: 560854
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
>>> Log:
>>> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
>>>
>>> Added:
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
>>>
>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

David E Jones

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

They're in the LICENSE file (just a minute ago).

I totally agree with the version number in the filenames... could you take care of that Anil and send me a patch for the LICENSE file too?

Thanks,
-David

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> As a side note, it would be useful to specify the release number of
> these libraries: I don't see it in the commit log, however I'd prefer to
> add it as a suffix to the folder name (e.g. prototypejs-1.0)
>
> Then we have to add these libraries to the LICENSE file as well.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
>> pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say
>> at this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>>
>> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype
>> and DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that
>> will need to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but
>> we might even want to keep both... I don't know though...
>>
>> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months
>>> back?
>>> Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Author: apatel
>>>> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
>>>> New Revision: 560854
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
>>>> Log:
>>>> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
>>>>
>>>> Added:
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
>>>>
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz (was: Re: svn commit: r560854 [1/4])

Administrator

In reply to this post by Vikash Anand-2

I do not know much about it (I did not use it yet) but I know that jQuery http://jquery.com/ is winning more and more fans... It's
not a framework but more a toolkit, I like this idea and with a very, very small size (though inside OFBiz this should not worry us
too much ;o). Licence : GPL

Jacques

De : "Vikash Anand" <[hidden email]>

> Dear All;
> I have one more contender to add in the list and that is DWR. DWR
> is built on top of Ajax and built using Direct Remoting will help us to get
> things using Ajax way with less/no dependence on UI libraries that others
> provide. This will help us to write simple Java methods to execute
> functionalities and very user friendly to write either java code, JS code
> and XML files.
>
> Please let me know your coments. I will be working on it's integration and
> will try to provide a sample/patch soon.
>
> Thanks and Regards;
> Vikash Anand.
>
> On 7/30/07, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
> > pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at
> > this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
> >
> > The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and
> > DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will need
> > to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we might even
> > want to keep both... I don't know though...
> >
> > Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > Scott Gray wrote:
> > > I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months
> > back?
> > > Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> Author: apatel
> > >> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
> > >> New Revision: 560854
> > >>
> > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
> > >> Log:
> > >> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
> > >>
> > >> Added:
> > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
> > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
> > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
> > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
> > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
> > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
> > >>
> > >>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
> > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
> > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
> > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
> > >>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Anil Patel-3

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

In reply to this post by David E Jones

David, Jacopo

I am not sure if its ok to do like this, because if we renamed those
files and added reference to them in screens, later when we update the
version we'll have to update all those screens.
Like following line from OrderScreens.xml in ecommerce line number 441
will change to something like
<set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
value="/images/dojo/dojo1.4.js" global="true"/>

Now if we upgrade to dojo1.5.js then we'll have to modify it to
<set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
value="/images/dojo/dojo1.5.js" global="true"/>

NOTE: I am using dojo just as an example. It could be any javascript file.

All these JavaScript lib files have version number written in the
beginning. Do you think that may be enough.

Regards
Anil Patel

David E Jones wrote:

>
> They're in the LICENSE file (just a minute ago).
>
> I totally agree with the version number in the filenames... could you
> take care of that Anil and send me a patch for the LICENSE file too?
>
> Thanks,
> -David
>
>
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> As a side note, it would be useful to specify the release number of
>> these libraries: I don't see it in the commit log, however I'd prefer
>> to add it as a suffix to the folder name (e.g. prototypejs-1.0)
>>
>> Then we have to add these libraries to the LICENSE file as well.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for
>>> special pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet,
>>> so I'd say at this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>>>
>>> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype
>>> and DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in
>>> that will need to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of
>>> these, but we might even want to keep both... I don't know though...
>>>
>>> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of
>>>> months back?
>>>> Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Author: apatel
>>>>> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
>>>>> New Revision: 560854
>>>>>
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Added:
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

Jacopo Cappellato

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

Anil,

please see my comments inline:

Anil K Patel wrote:
>
> Like following line from OrderScreens.xml in ecommerce line number 441
> will change to something like
> <set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
> value="/images/dojo/dojo1.4.js" global="true"/>
>

I see what you mean. However, my suggestion would be to rename the
folder and not each and every file in it, for example:

<set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
value="/images/dojo-1.5/dojo.js" global="true"/>

Of course this will cause some overhead (as you describe) when we have
to update dojo to 1.6, but maybe it is acceptable.
What other think about this?

Jacopo

Anil Patel-3

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

Jacopo,
Lets say we have a application deployed in production and we take update
from ofbiz trunk. If somebody did not have automatic tests, there are
chances that we may not notice this change in folder name and break some
pages.

Regards
Anil Patel

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Anil,
>
> please see my comments inline:
>
> Anil K Patel wrote:
>>
>> Like following line from OrderScreens.xml in ecommerce line number
>> 441 will change to something like
>> <set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
>> value="/images/dojo/dojo1.4.js" global="true"/>
>>
>
> I see what you mean. However, my suggestion would be to rename the
> folder and not each and every file in it, for example:
>
> <set field="layoutSettings.javaScripts[]"
> value="/images/dojo-1.5/dojo.js" global="true"/>
>
> Of course this will cause some overhead (as you describe) when we have
> to update dojo to 1.6, but maybe it is acceptable.
> What other think about this?
>
> Jacopo

Jacques Le Roux

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz (was: Re: svn commit: r560854 [1/4])

Administrator

In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux

Sorry, jQuery is released under a dual licence : also MIT :o)
http://dev.jquery.com/browser/trunk/jquery/MIT-LICENSE.txt

Jacques

De : "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
> I do not know much about it (I did not use it yet) but I know that jQuery http://jquery.com/ is winning more and more fans... It's
> not a framework but more a toolkit, I like this idea and with a very, very small size (though inside OFBiz this should not worry
us

> too much ;o). Licence : GPL
>
> Jacques
>
> De : "Vikash Anand" <[hidden email]>
> > Dear All;
> > I have one more contender to add in the list and that is DWR. DWR
> > is built on top of Ajax and built using Direct Remoting will help us to get
> > things using Ajax way with less/no dependence on UI libraries that others
> > provide. This will help us to write simple Java methods to execute
> > functionalities and very user friendly to write either java code, JS code
> > and XML files.
> >
> > Please let me know your coments. I will be working on it's integration and
> > will try to provide a sample/patch soon.
> >
> > Thanks and Regards;
> > Vikash Anand.
> >
> > On 7/30/07, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
> > > pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at
> > > this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
> > >
> > > The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and
> > > DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will need
> > > to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we might even
> > > want to keep both... I don't know though...
> > >
> > > Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Gray wrote:
> > > > I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months
> > > back?
> > > > Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > > On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> Author: apatel
> > > >> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
> > > >> New Revision: 560854
> > > >>
> > > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
> > > >> Log:
> > > >> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
> > > >>
> > > >> Added:
> > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
> > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
> > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
> > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
> > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
> > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
> > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
> > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
> > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
> > > >>
> > > ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >

Jacques Le Roux

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz (was: Re: svn commit: r560854 [1/4])

Administrator

One year old but still interesting :
http://ajaxian.com/archives/ajaxiancom-2006-survey-results

Jacques

De : "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
> Sorry, jQuery is released under a dual licence : also MIT :o)
> http://dev.jquery.com/browser/trunk/jquery/MIT-LICENSE.txt
>
> Jacques
>
> De : "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
> > I do not know much about it (I did not use it yet) but I know that jQuery http://jquery.com/ is winning more and more fans...
It's

> > not a framework but more a toolkit, I like this idea and with a very, very small size (though inside OFBiz this should not worry
> us
> > too much ;o). Licence : GPL
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > De : "Vikash Anand" <[hidden email]>
> > > Dear All;
> > > I have one more contender to add in the list and that is DWR. DWR
> > > is built on top of Ajax and built using Direct Remoting will help us to get
> > > things using Ajax way with less/no dependence on UI libraries that others
> > > provide. This will help us to write simple Java methods to execute
> > > functionalities and very user friendly to write either java code, JS code
> > > and XML files.
> > >
> > > Please let me know your coments. I will be working on it's integration and
> > > will try to provide a sample/patch soon.
> > >
> > > Thanks and Regards;
> > > Vikash Anand.
> > >
> > > On 7/30/07, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
> > > > pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at
> > > > this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
> > > >
> > > > The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and
> > > > DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will need
> > > > to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we might even
> > > > want to keep both... I don't know though...
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
> > > >
> > > > -David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Scott Gray wrote:
> > > > > I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months
> > > > back?
> > > > > Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >> Author: apatel
> > > > >> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
> > > > >> New Revision: 560854
> > > > >>
> > > > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
> > > > >> Log:
> > > > >> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Added:
> > > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
> > > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
> > > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
> > > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
> > > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
> > > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
> > > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
> > > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
> > > > >> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
> > > > >>
> > > > ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

Christian Geisert

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

In reply to this post by Scott Gray

Scott Gray schrieb:
> Hi David
>
> I guess my main concern was that this wasn't discussed beforehand and it was
> also committed by someone without framework privileges, I don't have any
> objections to the commit itself but I just worry about the impression it
> gives to current and potential committers about what is acceptable practice.

Same thoughts here..

--
Christian

David E Jones

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

In reply to this post by Scott Gray

I don't think we actually have an established policy for this. I guess as with anything if there are concerns with a commit then it is totally appropriate to bring them up and discuss them after the fact, and there is nothing stopping a change in direction.

-David

Scott Gray wrote:

> Hi David
>
> I guess my main concern was that this wasn't discussed beforehand and it was
> also committed by someone without framework privileges, I don't have any
> objections to the commit itself but I just worry about the impression it
> gives to current and potential committers about what is acceptable practice.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 30/07/07, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
>> pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at
>> this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>>
>> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and
>> DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will need
>> to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we might even
>> want to keep both... I don't know though...
>>
>> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> I thought we were using dojo after much discussion a couple of months
>> back?
>>> Are we intending to use multiple libraries?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 30/07/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Author: apatel
>>>> Date: Sun Jul 29 20:45:00 2007
>>>> New Revision: 560854
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560854
>>>> Log:
>>>> Prototype and Scriptaculous javascript libs.
>>>>
>>>> Added:
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/builder.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/controls.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/dragdrop.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/effects.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/prototype.js
>>>>
>>>>
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/scriptaculous.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/slider.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/sound.js
>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/unittest.js
>>>>
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/prototypejs/validation.js
>>>>
>>>>
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

Administrator

In reply to this post by Christian Geisert

Just a technical question : how Anil was able to commit in framework if he has no rights for that ?

Please Anil don't take that for you. For the moment, I can't see any problems with Dojo *and* Prototype in SVN

Jacques

De : "Christian Geisert" <[hidden email]>

> Scott Gray schrieb:
> > Hi David
> >
> > I guess my main concern was that this wasn't discussed beforehand and it was
> > also committed by someone without framework privileges, I don't have any
> > objections to the commit itself but I just worry about the impression it
> > gives to current and potential committers about what is acceptable practice.
>
> Same thoughts here..
>
> --
> Christian

Anil Patel-3

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

Jacques,
I have access to images folder in framework.
Regards
Anil Patel

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Just a technical question : how Anil was able to commit in framework if he has no rights for that ?
>
> Please Anil don't take that for you. For the moment, I can't see any problems with Dojo *and* Prototype in SVN
>
> Jacques
>
> De : "Christian Geisert" <[hidden email]>
>
>> Scott Gray schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi David
>>>
>>> I guess my main concern was that this wasn't discussed beforehand and it was
>>> also committed by someone without framework privileges, I don't have any
>>> objections to the commit itself but I just worry about the impression it
>>> gives to current and potential committers about what is acceptable practice.
>>>
>> Same thoughts here..
>>
>> --
>> Christian
>>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

Administrator

Ha yes, I forgot this one. Thanks for clarification Anil.

Jacques

De : "Anil K Patel" <[hidden email]>

> Jacques,
> I have access to images folder in framework.
> Regards
> Anil Patel
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > Just a technical question : how Anil was able to commit in framework if he has no rights for that ?
> >
> > Please Anil don't take that for you. For the moment, I can't see any problems with Dojo *and* Prototype in SVN
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > De : "Christian Geisert" <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> Scott Gray schrieb:
> >>
> >>> Hi David
> >>>
> >>> I guess my main concern was that this wasn't discussed beforehand and it was
> >>> also committed by someone without framework privileges, I don't have any
> >>> objections to the commit itself but I just worry about the impression it
> >>> gives to current and potential committers about what is acceptable practice.
> >>>
> >> Same thoughts here..
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christian
> >>
>

Ean Schuessler

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz (was: Re: svn commit: r560854 [1/4])

In reply to this post by David E Jones

On Monday 30 July 2007 12:24:13 am David E Jones wrote:

> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
> pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at
> this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>
> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and
> DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will need
> to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we might even
> want to keep both... I don't know though...
>
> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?

We really do have to look at JQuery. Seriously. I've been using it for various
things and its tiny, its fast and its a pleasure to work with. Watch JQuery
hand Dojo its papers on these two Fisheye menu implementations:

Dojo:
http://dojotoolkit.org/demos/fisheye-demo

JQuery:
http://interface.eyecon.ro/demos/fisheye.html

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
[hidden email]
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com

Ludovic Maître

Re: JavaScript/AJAX Libraries in OFBiz

Ean Schuessler wrote:

> On Monday 30 July 2007 12:24:13 am David E Jones wrote:
>
>> This is a good question... Right now these are mainly used for special
>> pages and we don't really have framework use of these yet, so I'd say at
>> this point we'll just have to see how things shake out!
>>
>> The two main contenders in our discussions about this were Prototype and
>> DOJO... so hopefully we won't have too much others coming in that will need
>> to be shaken out. If necessary we'll trim one of these, but we might even
>> want to keep both... I don't know though...
>>
>> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the best thing to do here?
>>
>
> We really do have to look at JQuery. Seriously. I've been using it for various
> things and its tiny, its fast and its a pleasure to work with. Watch JQuery
> hand Dojo its papers on these two Fisheye menu implementations:
>
> Dojo:
> http://dojotoolkit.org/demos/fisheye-demo
>
> JQuery:
> http://interface.eyecon.ro/demos/fisheye.html
>
>

+10000

--
Cordialement,
Ludo - http://www.ubik-products.com
---
"L'amour pour principe et l'ordre pour base; le progres pour but" (A.Comte)