Opinion::javascript frameworks for wicket stuffs

[Ayodeji Aladejebi <al...@gmail.com>]

peace peace peace, am not trying to critizise anyones project. i am
overwhelmed by what i find in the wicket world everytime

just an opinion about wicket stuffs

i think javascript contrib projects where the javascript library is larger
than say 100KB may not be worth it in some projects, i would rather prefer
that wicket stuff-ers select modular frameworks like MooTools or some highly
module JSlibraries so that only modules/functions related to the feature or
behavior being requested will be seleclted and compiled on the server and
sent to the client maybe in spikes of 10KB, 6KB sizes. This will be a better
strategy for javascript-wicket integration and wicket has an excellent
plugin path via the IBehavior Contract

I would not know, are there any such wicket contrib projects out there,
maybe am not well informed about this.

you see size matters which is the reason ppl complain about swing/applet/JRE
size, for instance i was trying to play with wicket dojo examples now and
looking for ways to use it in my next project, however when i clicked on
some of the examples, my browser frooze for a couple of seconds before
coming back. this is not nice.


i wont download a 100KB library just to add some small effect to my site or
freeze the entire browser because a huge javascript framework is loading or
initializing. apart from tinyMCE where the library is the funtion required ,
the Editor, i dont see why i should use a wicket contrib project for some
simple effects when it is larger than 100KB

just an opinion

Re: Opinion::javascript frameworks for wicket stuffs

[Ryan Sonnek <ry...@gmail.com>]

I've been investigating performance of the wicketstuff-scriptaculous project
quite a bit recently.  Scriptaculous is not what I would call a
"lightweight" javascript package, but the beauty of wicket is that they
automatically gzip javascript files, and can optionally minify the
libraries.  This *drastically* changes how much content is streamed down to
the users.  i've seen 120K drop to 20K automatically.

Wicket also does "the right thing" and sends down the correct browser cache
headers so that user's will not be constantly re-downloading these
javascript resources.  This makes integrating javascript libraries extremely
easy, so if there is a library out there that would be useful to wicket
developers, I'd recommend starting a wicketstuff project and get going!

On 9/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/13/07, Ayodeji Aladejebi <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > because i am not a javascript developer, really if I was deep into
> > javascript maybe i will have my own library and do this.
>
> You could try to rally people who can help you with this :-)
>
> I think that it is also a matter of developing enough useful
> components to a certain javascript library. The more components you
> use from such a project, the more you'll have the benefit of reusing
> shared javascript code, right?
>
>
> Eelco
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>

Re: Opinion::javascript frameworks for wicket stuffs

[Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>]

On 9/13/07, Ayodeji Aladejebi <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> because i am not a javascript developer, really if I was deep into
> javascript maybe i will have my own library and do this.

You could try to rally people who can help you with this :-)

I think that it is also a matter of developing enough useful
components to a certain javascript library. The more components you
use from such a project, the more you'll have the benefit of reusing
shared javascript code, right?


Eelco

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org

Re: Opinion::javascript frameworks for wicket stuffs

[Ayodeji Aladejebi <al...@gmail.com>]

because i am not a javascript developer, really if I was deep into
javascript maybe i will have my own library and do this.

like i said, this is not a critic move so no bashing


On 9/13/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> so why not start your own integration project? people who work on those
> are
> scratching their own itch, and to them the download size is probably not
> an
> issue.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 9/13/07, Ayodeji Aladejebi <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > peace peace peace, am not trying to critizise anyones project. i am
> > overwhelmed by what i find in the wicket world everytime
> >
> > just an opinion about wicket stuffs
> >
> > i think javascript contrib projects where the javascript library is
> larger
> > than say 100KB may not be worth it in some projects, i would rather
> prefer
> > that wicket stuff-ers select modular frameworks like MooTools or some
> > highly
> > module JSlibraries so that only modules/functions related to the feature
> > or
> > behavior being requested will be seleclted and compiled on the server
> and
> > sent to the client maybe in spikes of 10KB, 6KB sizes. This will be a
> > better
> > strategy for javascript-wicket integration and wicket has an excellent
> > plugin path via the IBehavior Contract
> >
> > I would not know, are there any such wicket contrib projects out there,
> > maybe am not well informed about this.
> >
> > you see size matters which is the reason ppl complain about
> > swing/applet/JRE
> > size, for instance i was trying to play with wicket dojo examples now
> and
> > looking for ways to use it in my next project, however when i clicked on
> > some of the examples, my browser frooze for a couple of seconds before
> > coming back. this is not nice.
> >
> >
> > i wont download a 100KB library just to add some small effect to my site
> > or
> > freeze the entire browser because a huge javascript framework is loading
> > or
> > initializing. apart from tinyMCE where the library is the funtion
> required
> > ,
> > the Editor, i dont see why i should use a wicket contrib project for
> some
> > simple effects when it is larger than 100KB
> >
> > just an opinion
> >
>

Re: Opinion::javascript frameworks for wicket stuffs

[Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>]

so why not start your own integration project? people who work on those are
scratching their own itch, and to them the download size is probably not an
issue.

-igor


On 9/13/07, Ayodeji Aladejebi <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> peace peace peace, am not trying to critizise anyones project. i am
> overwhelmed by what i find in the wicket world everytime
>
> just an opinion about wicket stuffs
>
> i think javascript contrib projects where the javascript library is larger
> than say 100KB may not be worth it in some projects, i would rather prefer
> that wicket stuff-ers select modular frameworks like MooTools or some
> highly
> module JSlibraries so that only modules/functions related to the feature
> or
> behavior being requested will be seleclted and compiled on the server and
> sent to the client maybe in spikes of 10KB, 6KB sizes. This will be a
> better
> strategy for javascript-wicket integration and wicket has an excellent
> plugin path via the IBehavior Contract
>
> I would not know, are there any such wicket contrib projects out there,
> maybe am not well informed about this.
>
> you see size matters which is the reason ppl complain about
> swing/applet/JRE
> size, for instance i was trying to play with wicket dojo examples now and
> looking for ways to use it in my next project, however when i clicked on
> some of the examples, my browser frooze for a couple of seconds before
> coming back. this is not nice.
>
>
> i wont download a 100KB library just to add some small effect to my site
> or
> freeze the entire browser because a huge javascript framework is loading
> or
> initializing. apart from tinyMCE where the library is the funtion required
> ,
> the Editor, i dont see why i should use a wicket contrib project for some
> simple effects when it is larger than 100KB
>
> just an opinion
>

Re: Opinion::javascript frameworks for wicket stuffs

[Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>]

well, i think you mix up with wicket-stuff-project size (the size you 
download and deploy) and the size you have in the end the user to load.

for example look at wicket-contrib-yui. if you download it, its some 
megs big, but it only puts small JS libs to the client using these 
actually (there is a class that takes care of - were improving to wicket 
2.3.0 at the moment trying to make use of the yuiLoader).

Also, if you look at the MirrorBehaviour from the Minis project youll 
only have a JS lib with under 5kb in the end.

if you know some projects whose are having 100KBs of stuff in 
deplyoment, just say it and its likely that sb. look into it, but 
honestly i dont know of one having much unecessary JS pushing to the user...

Regards,


Korbinian


Ayodeji Aladejebi schrieb:
> peace peace peace, am not trying to critizise anyones project. i am
> overwhelmed by what i find in the wicket world everytime
> 
> just an opinion about wicket stuffs
> 
> i think javascript contrib projects where the javascript library is larger
> than say 100KB may not be worth it in some projects, i would rather prefer
> that wicket stuff-ers select modular frameworks like MooTools or some highly
> module JSlibraries so that only modules/functions related to the feature or
> behavior being requested will be seleclted and compiled on the server and
> sent to the client maybe in spikes of 10KB, 6KB sizes. This will be a better
> strategy for javascript-wicket integration and wicket has an excellent
> plugin path via the IBehavior Contract
> 
> I would not know, are there any such wicket contrib projects out there,
> maybe am not well informed about this.
> 
> you see size matters which is the reason ppl complain about swing/applet/JRE
> size, for instance i was trying to play with wicket dojo examples now and
> looking for ways to use it in my next project, however when i clicked on
> some of the examples, my browser frooze for a couple of seconds before
> coming back. this is not nice.
> 
> 
> i wont download a 100KB library just to add some small effect to my site or
> freeze the entire browser because a huge javascript framework is loading or
> initializing. apart from tinyMCE where the library is the funtion required ,
> the Editor, i dont see why i should use a wicket contrib project for some
> simple effects when it is larger than 100KB
> 
> just an opinion
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org