http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/ofBiz-featuring-Google-ajax-tp143006p143023.html
Hmm, looks nice. Feels a lot rawer than ZK but that could be just a question of time. And a much more convenient licence.
I am snowed under, but I will try and blag one of my final-year students into doing a comparison of this and ZK for his project, hehe. Has anyone else used Echo2? Or its predecessor?
>
>
> This sounds pretty cool. Just to make it clear though, if it is GPL
> licensed we can't include it in OFBiz nor can we include code that
> relies on it or uses it in OFBiz.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Cameron Smith wrote:
>
> > Just to contribute to this discussion, we are moving in the
> > direction of using the ZK framework (potix.com). It has the same
> > dual licensing framework as MySQL.
> >
> > Note that this is a step beyond simply "using Ajax" inside a
> > basically normally page-by-page framework. It creates a much more
> > "desktop" model of development. The key reasons we are jumping to
> > this kind of model are:
> > 1. Avoids the mish-mash of technologies and syntax which most web
> > projects have (JSP + JSTL + Struts + DHTML + Prototype) for
> > example. One of the thins I most like about OFBiz (backend) is
> > that to code entities and business logic, you can spend most of
> > your time thinking about the data model, logic flow and
> > understanding the problem domain. Actually coding the service is
> > fairly straightforward, and doesnºt even require Java knowledge
> > (although Java is always there if you need it). Unfortunately,
> > after trying out the OFBiz frontend framework, we found it still
> > rather a mish-mash, albeit better organized. Widgets, screens,
> > forms, FTL, beanshell, scattered around various directories.
> > In ZK, you basically code in a very consistent XML language, and
> > beanshell. Optionally, you can define complex components in Java,
> > there are many plugin points. So we can reuse our developer's
> > existing Java knowledge.
> >
> > 2. Nicer to look at, and facilitates making more user-friendly UIs,
> > which is one area where OFBiz still has a long way to go.
> >
> > 3. Facilitates reuse of components across your application (if you
> > are careful about it).
> >
> > 4. MAY be more performant because there is less network traffic,
> > and less needless reprocessing of most of the page (menus, headers
> > etc), by both browser and server, every time you click a wee button.
> >
> > In technical terms, yes it requires installation of some servlets,
> > listeners etc. in your webapp but this to me is reasonable. They
> > are all standard J2EE components which I know how to configure and
> > secure.
> >
> > There IS a case for centralizing some of these services across all
> > OFBiz JVM, if you use ZK in multiple webapps, but then you could
> > say that about the OFBiz control servlet as well. There is always
> > some tradeoff between modularization and centralization.
> >
> > In terms of compatibility, it DOES depend on a more recent version
> > of Beanshell but I do not believe this issue will be around too
> > long (see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-528)
> >
> > The other very similar alternative to ZK, which we also
> > investigated, is:
> >
http://www.openlaszlo.org/> >
> > A very similar architecture, and very well-documented. The big
> > stumbling block was that it requires the browser to have Flash
> > plugin, of a certain version, etc., whereas ZK is purely DHTML-
> > based. Laszlo have been saying that DHTML support is coming "soon"
> > but in fact they have been saying this for a while. All of the
> > other frameworks (DOJO, prototype, rico, etc.) have the drawback
> > that they do one or two things, and have their very own syntax and
> > configuration peculiarities. ZK may not be best of breed in any of
> > these areas, but it is no slacker, and has the advantage of a
> > consistent approach to everything.
> >
> > Anyway, we are currently converting a 32bit client-server product
> > to use ZK frontend + OFBiz backend, I will keep yous all informed
> > of how it goes.
> >
> > cameron
> >
> > P.S. I am not in any way a representative of Potix Software, I am
> > merely summarizing the outcomes of my findings so far, with the
> > community
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Sayoke Shome <
[hidden email]>
> > To:
[hidden email]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 December, 2006 6:17:53 AM
> > Subject: RE: Ofbiz featuring Google Ajax?
> >
> >
> > I haven't worked much on DOJO (found it little confusing), but if
> > Ofbiz
> > community is looking for a tested and free framework for Ajax then
> > Might
> > I suggest DWR framework. The only disadvantage is, it comes with
> > its own
> > servlet. This has to be incorporated in Web.xml for web-app. But it
> > would make Ajax implementation child's play.
> >
> > But after working on Ajax in Ofbiz for couple of months I feel we can
> > make the most of it if we use naked Ajax code. It will then exploit
> > the
> > MVC architecture of Ofbiz to fullest and no third party servlet
> > will be
> > required.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sayoke Shome | eCommerce Framework Developer | ENSIA | BIPL, sector V,
> > salt lake | mobile 0.99031.80520 |
> >
> > "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge
> > without
> > integrity is dangerous and dreadful."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Ruppert [mailto:
[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:28 AM
> > To:
[hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: ofBiz featuring Google ajax?
> >
> >
> >
> > Walter, there's actually a lot of discussion on this topic going on
> >
> > on the dev list as we speak. There are competing "standards" out
> >
> > there and we're all trying to come to some consensus about what
> >
> > direction to take the project.
> >
> >
> >
> > We currently have demos in JSON, Google Web Toolkit and Dojo (and I
> >
> > know there are lots of other ones going on with other companies) - so
> >
> > I'm confident that we'll get to a good place.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tim Ruppert
> >
> > HotWax Media
> >
> >
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com> >
> >
> >
> > o:801.649.6594
> >
> > f:801.649.6594
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Walter Vaughan wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> I just read in that Google Ajax has been released under the Apache
> >
> >> 2.0 license. I know that Si and a few others are working on
> >
> >> integrating a few ajax features into the project, but it might be
> >
> >> cool to have a bulletpoint like "features the Google(r) Web Toolkit
> >
> >> (tm)"...
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html> >
> >>
> >
> >> --
> >
> >> Walter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ======================================================================
> > ======================================================
> >
> > Tech Mahindra, formerly Mahindra-British Telecom.
> >
> > Disclaimer:
> >
> > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary
> > and confidential and subject to the Tech Mahindra policy statement,
> > you may review at <a href="
http://www.techmahindra.com/> > Disclaimer.html">
http://www.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html</a>
> > externally and <a href="
http://tim.techmahindra.com/> > Disclaimer.html">
http://tim.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html</a>
> > internally within Tech Mahindra.
> >
> > ======================================================================
> > ======================================================
> >
> >
> >
> > Send instant messages to your online friends http://
> > uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>