2) Screen Widget based HTML return. The Ajax request makes a simple call
which returns a HTML fragment (developed using screen widgets). The
On 12/13/06, A. Zeneski <
>
> I am curious as to the pattern used to make the async calls, what method
> of return is used here?
>
> I see two possible patterns which would be useful:
>
> 1) JSON compressed objects. This will require more processing on the
> front end to pull the data and format the HTML. I like leaving this in
> the front end code personally. This is currently implemented using the
> JSONServiceEventHandler request handler.
>
> 2) Screen Widget based HTML return. The Ajax request makes a simple call
> which returns a HTML fragment (developed using screen widgets). The
> return is then just plugged in by updating the element content
> (innerHTML).
>
> Either of these patterns is fine by me, and I believe that for most
> applications a combination of the two would be necessary.
>
> I am sure there are many other ways to accomplish the same thing, but
> since there is so much effort about to begin around 'Ajaxing' OFBiz
> making sure things are consistent is #1 priority.
>
> I'm curious as to what other 'patterns' people have come up with (if any).
>
> Andrew
>
>
> Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > Just to continue the push towards Dojo, I am about to submit a new
> > Anonymous Checkout process for
> >
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-510 which is based upon
> > Dojo. You guys will like it - 3 steps and working towards my 2 step
> > process goal.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tim
> > --
> > Tim Ruppert
> > HotWax Media
> >
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com> >
> > o:801.649.6594
> > f:801.649.6594
> >
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2006, at 4:36 PM, A. Zeneski wrote:
> >
> >> I used prototype for my initial test and found it very easy to work
> >> with. Dojo on the other hand seemed to have a much broader learning
> >> curve. It too me a while to get everything working, but I think it is
> >> due to the ajax part being more verbose.
> >>
> >> The extra features such as DND and other widgets is very nice as well.
> >>
> >> The fact that DOJO is available under the BSD license is a plus as
> well.
> >> I think there should be no license issues with this library.
> >>
> >> Should we just say DOJO is the way to go for future Ajax based tools in
> >> OFBiz or do we need a formal vote?
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> Alex D. Fleming wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Ooops Dojo is supported by IBM & AOL ....so I will prefer Dojo.
> >>>
> >>>
http://dojotoolkit.org/foundation/> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/14/06, A. Zeneski <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Si (& all),
> >>>>
> >>>> I am in process of doing a lot of custom AJAX stuff for a new client.
> I
> >>>> intended on using prototype.js but based on conversations with other
> >>>> people decided to go with dojo instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> The main part of what I did was a JSON wrapper around the service
> event
> >>>> handler. What this does is allows you to define (controller) requests
> >>>> for ajax calls and have the results return in a lightweight (JSON)
> >>>> format.
> >>>>
> >>>> This will work with any front end toolkit (Yahoo, Prototype, Dojo,
> >>>> etc).
> >>>> The main point is to define a standard pattern for AJAX requests in
> >>>> OFBiz.
> >>>>
> >>>> Deciding on a toolkit for the javascript is very important and based
> on
> >>>> what I have researched and discussed with other people, Dojo seems
> >>>> to be
> >>>> the way to go.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, I am open for discussion with this, but we really should
> >>>> decide on a standard for contributions back to OFBiz. The last thing
> I
> >>>> want to see is several different ways of communication and different
> >>>> toolkits being used.
> >>>>
> >>>> Prototype.js has been removed from SVN for the time being. As soon as
> >>>> there is code which uses one of the toolkits it can be added back in.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's start a community vote for the default AJAX toolkit to use in
> >>>> OFBiz. Based on the work I did, I have already setup the back end
> >>>> pattern, services using JSON for the return. Now let's decide on a
> >>>> front
> >>>> end toolkit.
> >>>>
> >>>> First lets, define the candidates:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Dojo
> >>>> 2) Prototype
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >
> >
>
>
>