You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@myfaces.apache.org by Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com> on 2011/03/06 11:33:40 UTC
[Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Hi folks,
following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would like to
know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base to a
new Trinidad render kit.
JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
(another options ?)
What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
Thanks,
Walter Mourão
http://waltermourao.com.br
http://arcadian.com.br
http://oriens.com.br
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jquery has a good query engine and a lousy widget API, but due to its
popularity despite its deficiencies people have programmed a load of
widgets. I am not sure but I think primefaces recycles a lot of the
jquery infrastructure.
The personal problem i have with jquery simply is, it scales really well
if you need to add some stuff to an existing webpage but rolling bigger
javascript stuff will get you into a huge mess. It does not even support
inheritance out of the box, just basic mixins. Everything else is tacked
on top of it. Widgets also seem to be an afterthought api wise although
there is a bazillion of them in variying quality.
Dojo is more like a huge classlib, also has a very good query engine and
a set of widgets, but putting the dojo components to use in an existing
jsf lib is a huge task. Some people already have done it
www.dojofaces.org for instance.
Also dojo has its fair share of own infrastructure and marrying some
parts of that with jsf can be quite a task.
Also if you dont buy a book getting the hang of it can be quite a task
and the community is and always has been somewhat smaller. Additionally
to that it carries around a load of legacy code due to its age, not
really needed anymore in modern browsers.
Outside of that one serious contender definitely is YUI which irks me to
have the best overall code quality of the three big ones. But I have not
done anything with it.
And probably a few new ones I am not aware of.
Here is a short checklist of what you have to check out
a) Is a proper renamespacing possible, which means you have to roll your
own namespace so that applications which also integrated the same libary
and widget set into the program do not collide with your corelib.
b) Is it fast and can it scale from mobile space up to html5?
c) How big is the community behind it, the library can be mediocre but
if it has a big enough following you still will get usable recycleable
results
d) does it have a good set of widgets which are easy to use and try to
constrain themselves to their domain
e) If you need it does it provided the needed language infrastructure
like inheritance etc...
The functional approach some modern libs follow scales well for queries
and results but becomes problematic once you go into the control domain.
Ideally mixing both gives the best results.
f) How far does the libary scale down
g) How are the license compatibilities, for instance LGPL is a no go,
BSDish licenses are ok
In the end there will be no ideal library but it also would not make
sense for a component set to start from scratch given all the code there is.
Werner
Am 06.03.11 11:33, schrieb Walter Mourão:
> Hi folks,
> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would like to
> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base to a
> new Trinidad render kit.
>
> JQuery<http://jquery.org/>
>
> Dojo Toolkit<http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>
> (another options ?)
>
> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Walter Mourão
> http://waltermourao.com.br
> http://arcadian.com.br
> http://oriens.com.br
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Cédric Durmont <cd...@gmail.com>.
jquery is my savior in this area. My autosuggest component also
features DnD, plus I've made a range slider and a message panel a la
Toast, all using jquery plugins. I'm also running a highly enhanced
version of Tomahawk's schedule component, with PPR, context menus,
drag'n'drop and such.
Trinidad is a nice and solid library, sometime I just wish it had more
of those fancy components and options you can see on some other libs.
jquery helps a lot, but I'd love to see some enhancements so standard
components (say, automatic filters on tr:table / tr:column...)
Regards,
Cedric
2012/3/30 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> Thank you Cedric,
> in fact I'm following a similar path than yours since some years ago. By
> coincidence (or not!) I've created a suggestion box only with
> Trinidad+Facelets+Javascript <http://code.google.com/p/trinidadcomponents/>.
> The problem is from time to time some co-worker or client asks me about
> fancy components (drag'n drop, sliders, etc.) and is quite attractive to
> use it from a ready to run package.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Walter Mourão
> http://waltermourao.com.br
> http://arcadian.com.br
> http://oriens.com.br
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Cédric Durmont <cd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Walter,
>>
>> Just my $0.02 here, but at my company we've been using Trinidad for 2
>> years now, and for one of our product we included DojoFaces (we needed
>> the autoSuggest component).
>> We eventually backpedalled and rewrote our own autosuggest component
>> based on Trinidad + facelets, and use sometimes some jquery plugins,
>> all for the following reasons :
>> - dojofaces autosuggest had limitations that were hard to overcome
>> (e.g. it stopped working if I tried to feed it with twice the same
>> value), and didn't work reliably (sometimes the list would not open,
>> for no apparent reason)
>> - dojo is a monolithic lib, which is quite large, to say the least.
>>
>> Anyway, YMMV
>> Regards,
>> Cedric Durmont
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/30 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
>> > Just a follow-up on my findings so far... I liked very much the template
>> > based approach of DojoFaces <http://www.dojofaces.org/> and it looks to
>> me
>> > I can continue using the things I like in Trinidad (Dialogs, etc.) in
>> > conjunction with DojoFaces components without problems.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Walter Mourão
>> > http://waltermourao.com.br
>> > http://arcadian.com.br
>> > http://oriens.com.br
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>.
Thank you Cedric,
in fact I'm following a similar path than yours since some years ago. By
coincidence (or not!) I've created a suggestion box only with
Trinidad+Facelets+Javascript <http://code.google.com/p/trinidadcomponents/>.
The problem is from time to time some co-worker or client asks me about
fancy components (drag'n drop, sliders, etc.) and is quite attractive to
use it from a ready to run package.
Thanks,
Walter Mourão
http://waltermourao.com.br
http://arcadian.com.br
http://oriens.com.br
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Cédric Durmont <cd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Walter,
>
> Just my $0.02 here, but at my company we've been using Trinidad for 2
> years now, and for one of our product we included DojoFaces (we needed
> the autoSuggest component).
> We eventually backpedalled and rewrote our own autosuggest component
> based on Trinidad + facelets, and use sometimes some jquery plugins,
> all for the following reasons :
> - dojofaces autosuggest had limitations that were hard to overcome
> (e.g. it stopped working if I tried to feed it with twice the same
> value), and didn't work reliably (sometimes the list would not open,
> for no apparent reason)
> - dojo is a monolithic lib, which is quite large, to say the least.
>
> Anyway, YMMV
> Regards,
> Cedric Durmont
>
>
> 2012/3/30 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> > Just a follow-up on my findings so far... I liked very much the template
> > based approach of DojoFaces <http://www.dojofaces.org/> and it looks to
> me
> > I can continue using the things I like in Trinidad (Dialogs, etc.) in
> > conjunction with DojoFaces components without problems.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Walter Mourão
> > http://waltermourao.com.br
> > http://arcadian.com.br
> > http://oriens.com.br
> >
> >
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Cédric Durmont <cd...@gmail.com>.
Hi Walter,
Just my $0.02 here, but at my company we've been using Trinidad for 2
years now, and for one of our product we included DojoFaces (we needed
the autoSuggest component).
We eventually backpedalled and rewrote our own autosuggest component
based on Trinidad + facelets, and use sometimes some jquery plugins,
all for the following reasons :
- dojofaces autosuggest had limitations that were hard to overcome
(e.g. it stopped working if I tried to feed it with twice the same
value), and didn't work reliably (sometimes the list would not open,
for no apparent reason)
- dojo is a monolithic lib, which is quite large, to say the least.
Anyway, YMMV
Regards,
Cedric Durmont
2012/3/30 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> Just a follow-up on my findings so far... I liked very much the template
> based approach of DojoFaces <http://www.dojofaces.org/> and it looks to me
> I can continue using the things I like in Trinidad (Dialogs, etc.) in
> conjunction with DojoFaces components without problems.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Walter Mourão
> http://waltermourao.com.br
> http://arcadian.com.br
> http://oriens.com.br
>
>
>> >
>>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>.
Just a follow-up on my findings so far... I liked very much the template
based approach of DojoFaces <http://www.dojofaces.org/> and it looks to me
I can continue using the things I like in Trinidad (Dialogs, etc.) in
conjunction with DojoFaces components without problems.
Best regards,
Walter Mourão
http://waltermourao.com.br
http://arcadian.com.br
http://oriens.com.br
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Totally Werner. I suspect we'll add cases as needed in order to
> accommodate the entire tech stack for MyFaces.
>
> Okay, let me see if I can get an initial drop of code put somewhere
> and we can go from there.
>
> Scott
>
> On Mar 16, 2011, at 3:20 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Scott, MyFaces in its core _Runtime.js also uses some inheritance
> framework, you basically currently get single inheritance, namespacing
> > singletons and delegation.
> > What I have not provided yet due to the lack of need is mixins.
> >
> > Also I have code to lazy load scripts etc...
> >
> > I coded it because I felt it made sense to stay on the oo side of things
> even if it was just for jsf.js which has a limited scope and
> > so others who do not want to rely on a big framework like yui can get
> > basic OO into their own code without having to roll their own solution
> > (mostly Tomahawk was my main concern here which has a load of scripts
> which would benefit tremendously from being ooed)
> >
> > But I would not recommend our core as sole base for an entirely newly
> written renderer part of a component framework, because it is limited in
> its scope, of providing the core language mechanism and some dom routines
> to get a good maintainable structuring into jsf.js and make browser
> optimizations somewhat easier.
> >
> > Just wanted to add that as info.
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 12.03.11 23:11, schrieb Scott O'Bryan:
> >> Yes, ADF Faces. The two share a similar API but ADFFces is much more
> rich.
> >> It has animations, push technologies, and some other things. The
> >> client-side JavaScript has been re-engineered as well and while it uses
> >> Trinidad as the foundation, there is a lot more on the client side.
> >>
> >> Suffice to say that ADFFaces javascipt uses an inheritance framework
> that is
> >> a little more robust then standard JS inheritance patterns. We would
> have
> >> to rip that out and allow he MyFaces projects to replace it with their
> own
> >> grammars.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On Mar 12, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Walter Mour�o<wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Scott,
> >>
> >> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
> >>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
> >>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
> >>> done with the framework.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do you mean ADF Rich Faces ?
> >>
> >> Why do you say "it's mostly geared toward support of web business
> >> applications" ? what are the differences with the application that are
> done
> >> currently with Trinidad ? Do you know if the ADF Rich Faces client code
> uses
> >> some external (non-Oracle) javascript package ?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Walter Mour�o
> >> http://waltermourao.com.br
> >> http://arcadian.com.br
> >> http://oriens.com.br
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan<da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Walter,
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
> >>> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
> >>> framework.
> >>>
> >>> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
> >>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
> >>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
> >>> done with the framework.
> >>>
> >>> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
> >>> personally. ;)
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mour�o<wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thank you Dominik.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
> >>>> I think Trinidad has:
> >>>> - rock solid back-end;
> >>>> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in
> old
> >>> data
> >>>> collectors - windows mobile)
> >>>> ...
> >>>> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when
> migrating
> >>> my
> >>>> applications to an "up to date UI".
> >>>>
> >>>> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
> >>> don't
> >>>> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
> >>> help
> >>>> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm
> experimenting to
> >>>> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
> >>> library.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Walter Mour�o
> >>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
> >>>> http://arcadian.com.br
> >>>> http://oriens.com.br
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn<do...@dominikdorn.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces,
> RichFaces
> >>>>> etc.,
> >>>>> I suggest to take a look at
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
> >>>>> http://www.sproutcore.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and rebuilt those for JSF.
> >>>>> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
> >>>>> interest, especially
> >>>>> in the rails community.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2011/3/6 Walter Mour�o<wa...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
> >>> like
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a
> base
> >>> to
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>> new Trinidad render kit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JQuery<http://jquery.org/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dojo Toolkit<http://dojotoolkit.org/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (another options ?)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Walter Mour�o
> >>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
> >>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
> >>>>>> http://oriens.com.br
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Dominik Dorn
> >>>>> http://dominikdorn.com
> >>>>> http://twitter.com/domdorn
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Totally Werner. I suspect we'll add cases as needed in order to
accommodate the entire tech stack for MyFaces.
Okay, let me see if I can get an initial drop of code put somewhere
and we can go from there.
Scott
On Mar 16, 2011, at 3:20 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Scott, MyFaces in its core _Runtime.js also uses some inheritance framework, you basically currently get single inheritance, namespacing
> singletons and delegation.
> What I have not provided yet due to the lack of need is mixins.
>
> Also I have code to lazy load scripts etc...
>
> I coded it because I felt it made sense to stay on the oo side of things even if it was just for jsf.js which has a limited scope and
> so others who do not want to rely on a big framework like yui can get
> basic OO into their own code without having to roll their own solution
> (mostly Tomahawk was my main concern here which has a load of scripts which would benefit tremendously from being ooed)
>
> But I would not recommend our core as sole base for an entirely newly written renderer part of a component framework, because it is limited in its scope, of providing the core language mechanism and some dom routines to get a good maintainable structuring into jsf.js and make browser optimizations somewhat easier.
>
> Just wanted to add that as info.
>
> Werner
>
>
>
> Am 12.03.11 23:11, schrieb Scott O'Bryan:
>> Yes, ADF Faces. The two share a similar API but ADFFces is much more rich.
>> It has animations, push technologies, and some other things. The
>> client-side JavaScript has been re-engineered as well and while it uses
>> Trinidad as the foundation, there is a lot more on the client side.
>>
>> Suffice to say that ADFFaces javascipt uses an inheritance framework that is
>> a little more robust then standard JS inheritance patterns. We would have
>> to rip that out and allow he MyFaces projects to replace it with their own
>> grammars.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Walter Mour�o<wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
>>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
>>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
>>> done with the framework.
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean ADF Rich Faces ?
>>
>> Why do you say "it's mostly geared toward support of web business
>> applications" ? what are the differences with the application that are done
>> currently with Trinidad ? Do you know if the ADF Rich Faces client code uses
>> some external (non-Oracle) javascript package ?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Walter Mour�o
>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>> http://arcadian.com.br
>> http://oriens.com.br
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan<da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Walter,
>>>
>>> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
>>> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
>>> framework.
>>>
>>> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
>>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
>>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
>>> done with the framework.
>>>
>>> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
>>> personally. ;)
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mour�o<wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Dominik.
>>>>
>>>> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
>>>> I think Trinidad has:
>>>> - rock solid back-end;
>>>> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
>>> data
>>>> collectors - windows mobile)
>>>> ...
>>>> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
>>> my
>>>> applications to an "up to date UI".
>>>>
>>>> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
>>> don't
>>>> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
>>> help
>>>> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
>>>> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
>>> library.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Walter Mour�o
>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn<do...@dominikdorn.com>
>>>>
>>>>> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
>>>>> etc.,
>>>>> I suggest to take a look at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
>>>>> http://www.sproutcore.com
>>>>>
>>>>> and rebuilt those for JSF.
>>>>> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
>>>>> interest, especially
>>>>> in the rails community.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/3/6 Walter Mour�o<wa...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
>>> like
>>>>> to
>>>>>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base
>>> to
>>>>> a
>>>>>> new Trinidad render kit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JQuery<http://jquery.org/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dojo Toolkit<http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (another options ?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Walter Mour�o
>>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dominik Dorn
>>>>> http://dominikdorn.com
>>>>> http://twitter.com/domdorn
>>>>>
>>>>> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi
So, which one is the next step?
Leonardo
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Hi Scott, MyFaces in its core _Runtime.js also uses some inheritance
framework, you basically currently get single inheritance, namespacing
singletons and delegation.
What I have not provided yet due to the lack of need is mixins.
Also I have code to lazy load scripts etc...
I coded it because I felt it made sense to stay on the oo side of things
even if it was just for jsf.js which has a limited scope and
so others who do not want to rely on a big framework like yui can get
basic OO into their own code without having to roll their own solution
(mostly Tomahawk was my main concern here which has a load of scripts
which would benefit tremendously from being ooed)
But I would not recommend our core as sole base for an entirely newly
written renderer part of a component framework, because it is limited in
its scope, of providing the core language mechanism and some dom
routines to get a good maintainable structuring into jsf.js and make
browser optimizations somewhat easier.
Just wanted to add that as info.
Werner
Am 12.03.11 23:11, schrieb Scott O'Bryan:
> Yes, ADF Faces. The two share a similar API but ADFFces is much more rich.
> It has animations, push technologies, and some other things. The
> client-side JavaScript has been re-engineered as well and while it uses
> Trinidad as the foundation, there is a lot more on the client side.
>
> Suffice to say that ADFFaces javascipt uses an inheritance framework that is
> a little more robust then standard JS inheritance patterns. We would have
> to rip that out and allow he MyFaces projects to replace it with their own
> grammars.
>
> Scott
>
> On Mar 12, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Walter Mourão<wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
>> done with the framework.
>>
>
> Do you mean ADF Rich Faces ?
>
> Why do you say "it's mostly geared toward support of web business
> applications" ? what are the differences with the application that are done
> currently with Trinidad ? Do you know if the ADF Rich Faces client code uses
> some external (non-Oracle) javascript package ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Walter Mourão
> http://waltermourao.com.br
> http://arcadian.com.br
> http://oriens.com.br
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan<da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Walter,
>>
>> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
>> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
>> framework.
>>
>> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
>> done with the framework.
>>
>> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
>> personally. ;)
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão<wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Dominik.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
>>> I think Trinidad has:
>>> - rock solid back-end;
>>> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
>> data
>>> collectors - windows mobile)
>>> ...
>>> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
>> my
>>> applications to an "up to date UI".
>>>
>>> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
>> don't
>>> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
>> help
>>> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
>>> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
>> library.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Walter Mourão
>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn<do...@dominikdorn.com>
>>>
>>>> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
>>>> etc.,
>>>> I suggest to take a look at
>>>>
>>>> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
>>>> http://www.sproutcore.com
>>>>
>>>> and rebuilt those for JSF.
>>>> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
>>>> interest, especially
>>>> in the rails community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão<wa...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
>> like
>>>> to
>>>>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base
>> to
>>>> a
>>>>> new Trinidad render kit.
>>>>>
>>>>> JQuery<http://jquery.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dojo Toolkit<http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> (another options ?)
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Walter Mourão
>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dominik Dorn
>>>> http://dominikdorn.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/domdorn
>>>>
>>>> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
>>>>
>>
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Yes, ADF Faces. The two share a similar API but ADFFces is much more rich.
It has animations, push technologies, and some other things. The
client-side JavaScript has been re-engineered as well and while it uses
Trinidad as the foundation, there is a lot more on the client side.
Suffice to say that ADFFaces javascipt uses an inheritance framework that is
a little more robust then standard JS inheritance patterns. We would have
to rip that out and allow he MyFaces projects to replace it with their own
grammars.
Scott
On Mar 12, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Scott,
I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
> done with the framework.
>
Do you mean ADF Rich Faces ?
Why do you say "it's mostly geared toward support of web business
applications" ? what are the differences with the application that are done
currently with Trinidad ? Do you know if the ADF Rich Faces client code uses
some external (non-Oracle) javascript package ?
Thanks in advance,
Walter Mourão
http://waltermourao.com.br
http://arcadian.com.br
http://oriens.com.br
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Walter,
>
> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
> framework.
>
> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
> done with the framework.
>
> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
> personally. ;)
>
> Scott
>
> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Dominik.
> >
> > Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
> > I think Trinidad has:
> > - rock solid back-end;
> > - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
> data
> > collectors - windows mobile)
> > ...
> > and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
> my
> > applications to an "up to date UI".
> >
> > I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
> don't
> > have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
> help
> > much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
> > see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
> library.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Walter Mourão
> > http://waltermourao.com.br
> > http://arcadian.com.br
> > http://oriens.com.br
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com>
> >
> >> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
> >> etc.,
> >> I suggest to take a look at
> >>
> >> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
> >> http://www.sproutcore.com
> >>
> >> and rebuilt those for JSF.
> >> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
> >> interest, especially
> >> in the rails community.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> >>> Hi folks,
> >>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
> like
> >> to
> >>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base
> to
> >> a
> >>> new Trinidad render kit.
> >>>
> >>> JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
> >>>
> >>> Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
> >>>
> >>> (another options ?)
> >>>
> >>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Walter Mourão
> >>> http://waltermourao.com.br
> >>> http://arcadian.com.br
> >>> http://oriens.com.br
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dominik Dorn
> >> http://dominikdorn.com
> >> http://twitter.com/domdorn
> >>
> >> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
> >>
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Scott,
I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
> done with the framework.
>
Do you mean ADF Rich Faces ?
Why do you say "it's mostly geared toward support of web business
applications" ? what are the differences with the application that are done
currently with Trinidad ? Do you know if the ADF Rich Faces client code uses
some external (non-Oracle) javascript package ?
Thanks in advance,
Walter Mourão
http://waltermourao.com.br
http://arcadian.com.br
http://oriens.com.br
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Walter,
>
> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
> framework.
>
> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
> done with the framework.
>
> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
> personally. ;)
>
> Scott
>
> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Dominik.
> >
> > Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
> > I think Trinidad has:
> > - rock solid back-end;
> > - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
> data
> > collectors - windows mobile)
> > ...
> > and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
> my
> > applications to an "up to date UI".
> >
> > I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
> don't
> > have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
> help
> > much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
> > see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
> library.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Walter Mourão
> > http://waltermourao.com.br
> > http://arcadian.com.br
> > http://oriens.com.br
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com>
> >
> >> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
> >> etc.,
> >> I suggest to take a look at
> >>
> >> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
> >> http://www.sproutcore.com
> >>
> >> and rebuilt those for JSF.
> >> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
> >> interest, especially
> >> in the rails community.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> >>> Hi folks,
> >>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
> like
> >> to
> >>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base
> to
> >> a
> >>> new Trinidad render kit.
> >>>
> >>> JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
> >>>
> >>> Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
> >>>
> >>> (another options ?)
> >>>
> >>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Walter Mourão
> >>> http://waltermourao.com.br
> >>> http://arcadian.com.br
> >>> http://oriens.com.br
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dominik Dorn
> >> http://dominikdorn.com
> >> http://twitter.com/domdorn
> >>
> >> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
> >>
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Mar 12, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, now I understand...
>
> I think it is "one" of the problems. Instead thinking about what it is
>> wrong, I'm trying to thing on which steps should we take to enhance
>> trinidad.
>>
>> If the objective is rewrite trinidad components using a theorical
>> javascript library, it is necessary to take these steps first:
>>
>> 1. Document current trinidad javascript api and identify what do we need to
>> implement, or in other words, which part of the code is api and which one is
>> implementation details.
>>
>> 2. Try to make easier generate custom components using trinidad.
>>
>
> you are addressing the infrastructure "fault" to easier the next step...
> agreed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Walter Mourão
> http://waltermourao.com.br
> http://arcadian.com.br
> http://oriens.com.br
>
>
>
> 2011/3/12 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>
>
>> Hi Walter
>>
>> 2011/3/12 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hi Leonardo,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I've got the idea... do you think the javascript
>>> documentation is THE big problem ? I really don't have an opinion because I
>>> didn't go deeper in Trinidad javascript code.
>>>
>>
>> I think it is "one" of the problems. Instead thinking about what it is
>> wrong, I'm trying to thing on which steps should we take to enhance
>> trinidad.
>>
>> If the objective is rewrite trinidad components using a theorical
>> javascript library, it is necessary to take these steps first:
>>
>> 1. Document current trinidad javascript api and identify what do we need to
>> implement, or in other words, which part of the code is api and which one is
>> implementation details.
>>
>> 2. Try to make easier generate custom components using trinidad.
>>
>> For the first step we can take the alternative I proposed before or even
>> better use the code proposed by Scott if it is donated to MyFaces. The
>> second step is being handled here:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1409
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In your opinion the best solution is just continue improving the current
>>> Trinidad client code ? As I stated before, my desire (so far) is the
>>> combination of Trinidad with a good javascript UI package, this way we could
>>> count with another community focused in the client side code.
>>>
>>
>> In my opinion we need to improve the current Trinidad client and java code
>> to open the possibility of new renderkits / components. I think the reason
>> why use a well known javascript library is it is more easier to users to
>> change to their needs. But maybe (note here I'm speculating) in some cases,
>> users does not need a full renderkit, instead they could need only to modify
>> one or two components, or maybe they just need to know where to change x or
>> y to make the component work as they expected.
>>
>> I think first we need to take action on the previous steps, and then we
>> should answer the checklist Werner (we can do it now, suggestions are
>> welcome). After that we'll have a clear course of action.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>.
Ok, now I understand...
I think it is "one" of the problems. Instead thinking about what it is
> wrong, I'm trying to thing on which steps should we take to enhance
> trinidad.
>
> If the objective is rewrite trinidad components using a theorical
> javascript library, it is necessary to take these steps first:
>
> 1. Document current trinidad javascript api and identify what do we need to
> implement, or in other words, which part of the code is api and which one is
> implementation details.
>
> 2. Try to make easier generate custom components using trinidad.
>
you are addressing the infrastructure "fault" to easier the next step...
agreed.
Thanks,
Walter Mourão
http://waltermourao.com.br
http://arcadian.com.br
http://oriens.com.br
2011/3/12 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>
> Hi Walter
>
> 2011/3/12 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>
>
>> Hi Leonardo,
>>
>> I'm not sure I've got the idea... do you think the javascript
>> documentation is THE big problem ? I really don't have an opinion because I
>> didn't go deeper in Trinidad javascript code.
>>
>
> I think it is "one" of the problems. Instead thinking about what it is
> wrong, I'm trying to thing on which steps should we take to enhance
> trinidad.
>
> If the objective is rewrite trinidad components using a theorical
> javascript library, it is necessary to take these steps first:
>
> 1. Document current trinidad javascript api and identify what do we need to
> implement, or in other words, which part of the code is api and which one is
> implementation details.
>
> 2. Try to make easier generate custom components using trinidad.
>
> For the first step we can take the alternative I proposed before or even
> better use the code proposed by Scott if it is donated to MyFaces. The
> second step is being handled here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1409
>
>
>>
>> In your opinion the best solution is just continue improving the current
>> Trinidad client code ? As I stated before, my desire (so far) is the
>> combination of Trinidad with a good javascript UI package, this way we could
>> count with another community focused in the client side code.
>>
>
> In my opinion we need to improve the current Trinidad client and java code
> to open the possibility of new renderkits / components. I think the reason
> why use a well known javascript library is it is more easier to users to
> change to their needs. But maybe (note here I'm speculating) in some cases,
> users does not need a full renderkit, instead they could need only to modify
> one or two components, or maybe they just need to know where to change x or
> y to make the component work as they expected.
>
> I think first we need to take action on the previous steps, and then we
> should answer the checklist Werner (we can do it now, suggestions are
> welcome). After that we'll have a clear course of action.
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Leonardo,
I'm not sure I've got the idea... do you think the javascript documentation
is THE big problem ? I really don't have an opinion because I didn't go
deeper in Trinidad javascript code.
In your opinion the best solution is just continue improving the current
Trinidad client code ? As I stated before, my desire (so far) is the
combination of Trinidad with a good javascript UI package, this way we could
count with another community focused in the client side code.
Cheers,
Walter Mourão
http://waltermourao.com.br
http://arcadian.com.br
http://oriens.com.br
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think one of the problems right now it is necessary to overcome is create
> a javascript documentation maven plugin for trinidad, myfaces core 2.0.x,
> and probably tobago.
>
> If you take a look at the sites of those projects, you'll see there is
> generated javadoc, tlddoc, facelets-tlddoc and other documentation reports
> available on the site. But there is not anything for javascript.
>
> The reason is there is not a maven plugin written in java that do the job.
> In theory it is possible to use jsdoc toolkit, but unfortunately there is
> some code on myfaces core that by its structure can't be documented
> properly
> with that tool (I already tried it, it just don't), and mozilla rhino
> causes
> some problems when the goal is executed, because it loads the javascript
> file too.
>
> This is a good idea for a Google Summer Of Code, because in practice half
> of
> the solution is done. Trinidad javascript plugin contains a code that is
> capable of parse javascript files (look the obfuscator), so what we need is
> use this code and create some code that scan for doclets (annotations on
> the
> comments), get the information and build a model and finally generate the
> documentation using a template tool like velocity. Again we have already
> some code on myfaces builder plugin that could be useful.
>
> Trinidad code is very robust. With JSF 2.0, we have a common ajax
> framework,
> so in theory it is possible to create custom ajaxified components and make
> them work together with trinidad. But I think what users wants is to know
> the details behind it and how they can extend or override trinidad stuff.
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> 2011/3/10 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
>
> > Walter,
> >
> > Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
> > internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
> > framework.
> >
> > I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
> > which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
> > support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
> > done with the framework.
> >
> > I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
> > personally. ;)
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Dominik.
> > >
> > > Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
> > > I think Trinidad has:
> > > - rock solid back-end;
> > > - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
> > data
> > > collectors - windows mobile)
> > > ...
> > > and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
> > my
> > > applications to an "up to date UI".
> > >
> > > I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
> > don't
> > > have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
> > help
> > > much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting
> to
> > > see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
> > library.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Walter Mourão
> > > http://waltermourao.com.br
> > > http://arcadian.com.br
> > > http://oriens.com.br
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com>
> > >
> > >> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
> > >> etc.,
> > >> I suggest to take a look at
> > >>
> > >> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
> > >> http://www.sproutcore.com
> > >>
> > >> and rebuilt those for JSF.
> > >> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
> > >> interest, especially
> > >> in the rails community.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> > >>> Hi folks,
> > >>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
> > like
> > >> to
> > >>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a
> base
> > to
> > >> a
> > >>> new Trinidad render kit.
> > >>>
> > >>> JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
> > >>>
> > >>> Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
> > >>>
> > >>> (another options ?)
> > >>>
> > >>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Walter Mourão
> > >>> http://waltermourao.com.br
> > >>> http://arcadian.com.br
> > >>> http://oriens.com.br
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Dominik Dorn
> > >> http://dominikdorn.com
> > >> http://twitter.com/domdorn
> > >>
> > >> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi
+1
That's good news. I'm interested. In the medium/long term we'll have more
javascript stuff in myfaces projects that needs to be documented, and this
could be a very valuable contribution.
regards,
Leonardo
2011/3/11 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
> So I did do some checking on this and we have something we are using
> in-house here at Oracle. It uses a more robust javascript parser to
> generate the Javadocs and even allows the code to be annotated to produce
> much cleaner documentation. The only bad thing about it is that we have
> some parsing for inheritance that is probably specific to our richclient.
>
> I talked with the guy who wrote and and he'd be willing to donate it if
> people are interested. He said ripping out the proprietary stuff for
> inheritance should be pretty easy and then the MyFaces community could
> enhance to to allow the docs to work on our own stuff. Are people
> interested?
>
> If so, I can open up a discussion on the dev list with the specifics.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On 03/10/2011 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>
>> Very good points Leonardo, and your right about Trinidad's parser. I
>> do know that I've seen some stuff in-house which generates
>> javascriptDoc and even does auditing. Let me check to see if it's
>> something we can donate or if it's too specific to our legacy code..
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Leonardo Uribe<lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>>
>>> I think one of the problems right now it is necessary to overcome is
>>> create
>>> a javascript documentation maven plugin for trinidad, myfaces core 2.0.x,
>>> and probably tobago.
>>>
>>> If you take a look at the sites of those projects, you'll see there is
>>> generated javadoc, tlddoc, facelets-tlddoc and other documentation
>>> reports
>>> available on the site. But there is not anything for javascript.
>>>
>>> The reason is there is not a maven plugin written in java that do the
>>> job.
>>> In theory it is possible to use jsdoc toolkit, but unfortunately there is
>>> some code on myfaces core that by its structure can't be documented
>>> properly
>>> with that tool (I already tried it, it just don't), and mozilla rhino
>>> causes
>>> some problems when the goal is executed, because it loads the javascript
>>> file too.
>>>
>>> This is a good idea for a Google Summer Of Code, because in practice half
>>> of
>>> the solution is done. Trinidad javascript plugin contains a code that is
>>> capable of parse javascript files (look the obfuscator), so what we need
>>> is
>>> use this code and create some code that scan for doclets (annotations on
>>> the
>>> comments), get the information and build a model and finally generate the
>>> documentation using a template tool like velocity. Again we have already
>>> some code on myfaces builder plugin that could be useful.
>>>
>>> Trinidad code is very robust. With JSF 2.0, we have a common ajax
>>> framework,
>>> so in theory it is possible to create custom ajaxified components and
>>> make
>>> them work together with trinidad. But I think what users wants is to know
>>> the details behind it and how they can extend or override trinidad stuff.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>
>>> 2011/3/10 Scott O'Bryan<da...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Walter,
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
>>>> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
>>>> framework.
>>>>
>>>> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
>>>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
>>>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
>>>> done with the framework.
>>>>
>>>> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
>>>> personally. ;)
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão<wa...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Dominik.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
>>>>> I think Trinidad has:
>>>>> - rock solid back-end;
>>>>> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
>>>>>
>>>> data
>>>>
>>>>> collectors - windows mobile)
>>>>> ...
>>>>> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
>>>>>
>>>> my
>>>>
>>>>> applications to an "up to date UI".
>>>>>
>>>>> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
>>>>>
>>>> don't
>>>>
>>>>> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
>>>>>
>>>> help
>>>>
>>>>> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting
>>>>> to
>>>>> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
>>>>>
>>>> library.
>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Walter Mourão
>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn<do...@dominikdorn.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
>>>>>> etc.,
>>>>>> I suggest to take a look at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
>>>>>> http://www.sproutcore.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and rebuilt those for JSF.
>>>>>> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
>>>>>> interest, especially
>>>>>> in the rails community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão<wa...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> like
>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a
>>>>>>> base
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> new Trinidad render kit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JQuery<http://jquery.org/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dojo Toolkit<http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (another options ?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Walter Mourão
>>>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dominik Dorn
>>>>>> http://dominikdorn.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/domdorn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Hi, we are very interested, btw. we probably have to read our own parts
for the inheritance stuff, because we use inheritance, delegation
and singletons as structural core patterns ourselves in the core.
So if the tool needs meta information in this regard we will have to
readd our own implementation stuff here.
Oh well I guess this is the krux of using a dynamic lanugage which does
not have inheritance and namespaces baked into the core itself.
I guess for every framework used all this information on how to deal
with it must be added and hence tools like jsdoc simply fail on more
complicated cases or frameworks which do not belong to the more popular
ones.
Werner
Am 11.03.11 18:43, schrieb Scott O'Bryan:
> So I did do some checking on this and we have something we are using
> in-house here at Oracle. It uses a more robust javascript parser to
> generate the Javadocs and even allows the code to be annotated to
> produce much cleaner documentation. The only bad thing about it is that
> we have some parsing for inheritance that is probably specific to our
> richclient.
>
> I talked with the guy who wrote and and he'd be willing to donate it if
> people are interested. He said ripping out the proprietary stuff for
> inheritance should be pretty easy and then the MyFaces community could
> enhance to to allow the docs to work on our own stuff. Are people
> interested?
>
> If so, I can open up a discussion on the dev list with the specifics.
>
> Scott
>
> On 03/10/2011 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>> Very good points Leonardo, and your right about Trinidad's parser. I
>> do know that I've seen some stuff in-house which generates
>> javascriptDoc and even does auditing. Let me check to see if it's
>> something we can donate or if it's too specific to our legacy code..
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Leonardo Uribe<lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I think one of the problems right now it is necessary to overcome is
>>> create
>>> a javascript documentation maven plugin for trinidad, myfaces core
>>> 2.0.x,
>>> and probably tobago.
>>>
>>> If you take a look at the sites of those projects, you'll see there is
>>> generated javadoc, tlddoc, facelets-tlddoc and other documentation
>>> reports
>>> available on the site. But there is not anything for javascript.
>>>
>>> The reason is there is not a maven plugin written in java that do the
>>> job.
>>> In theory it is possible to use jsdoc toolkit, but unfortunately
>>> there is
>>> some code on myfaces core that by its structure can't be documented
>>> properly
>>> with that tool (I already tried it, it just don't), and mozilla rhino
>>> causes
>>> some problems when the goal is executed, because it loads the javascript
>>> file too.
>>>
>>> This is a good idea for a Google Summer Of Code, because in practice
>>> half of
>>> the solution is done. Trinidad javascript plugin contains a code that is
>>> capable of parse javascript files (look the obfuscator), so what we
>>> need is
>>> use this code and create some code that scan for doclets (annotations
>>> on the
>>> comments), get the information and build a model and finally generate
>>> the
>>> documentation using a template tool like velocity. Again we have already
>>> some code on myfaces builder plugin that could be useful.
>>>
>>> Trinidad code is very robust. With JSF 2.0, we have a common ajax
>>> framework,
>>> so in theory it is possible to create custom ajaxified components and
>>> make
>>> them work together with trinidad. But I think what users wants is to
>>> know
>>> the details behind it and how they can extend or override trinidad
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>
>>> 2011/3/10 Scott O'Bryan<da...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Walter,
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
>>>> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
>>>> framework.
>>>>
>>>> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
>>>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
>>>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
>>>> done with the framework.
>>>>
>>>> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
>>>> personally. ;)
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão<wa...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Dominik.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
>>>>> I think Trinidad has:
>>>>> - rock solid back-end;
>>>>> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in
>>>>> old
>>>> data
>>>>> collectors - windows mobile)
>>>>> ...
>>>>> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when
>>>>> migrating
>>>> my
>>>>> applications to an "up to date UI".
>>>>>
>>>>> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
>>>> don't
>>>>> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
>>>> help
>>>>> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm
>>>>> experimenting to
>>>>> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
>>>> library.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Walter Mourão
>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn<do...@dominikdorn.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces,
>>>>>> RichFaces
>>>>>> etc.,
>>>>>> I suggest to take a look at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
>>>>>> http://www.sproutcore.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and rebuilt those for JSF.
>>>>>> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
>>>>>> interest, especially
>>>>>> in the rails community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão<wa...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
>>>> like
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a
>>>>>>> base
>>>> to
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> new Trinidad render kit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JQuery<http://jquery.org/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dojo Toolkit<http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (another options ?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Walter Mourão
>>>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dominik Dorn
>>>>>> http://dominikdorn.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/domdorn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
>>>>>>
>
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
So I did do some checking on this and we have something we are using
in-house here at Oracle. It uses a more robust javascript parser to
generate the Javadocs and even allows the code to be annotated to
produce much cleaner documentation. The only bad thing about it is that
we have some parsing for inheritance that is probably specific to our
richclient.
I talked with the guy who wrote and and he'd be willing to donate it if
people are interested. He said ripping out the proprietary stuff for
inheritance should be pretty easy and then the MyFaces community could
enhance to to allow the docs to work on our own stuff. Are people
interested?
If so, I can open up a discussion on the dev list with the specifics.
Scott
On 03/10/2011 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> Very good points Leonardo, and your right about Trinidad's parser. I
> do know that I've seen some stuff in-house which generates
> javascriptDoc and even does auditing. Let me check to see if it's
> something we can donate or if it's too specific to our legacy code..
>
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Leonardo Uribe<lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I think one of the problems right now it is necessary to overcome is create
>> a javascript documentation maven plugin for trinidad, myfaces core 2.0.x,
>> and probably tobago.
>>
>> If you take a look at the sites of those projects, you'll see there is
>> generated javadoc, tlddoc, facelets-tlddoc and other documentation reports
>> available on the site. But there is not anything for javascript.
>>
>> The reason is there is not a maven plugin written in java that do the job.
>> In theory it is possible to use jsdoc toolkit, but unfortunately there is
>> some code on myfaces core that by its structure can't be documented properly
>> with that tool (I already tried it, it just don't), and mozilla rhino causes
>> some problems when the goal is executed, because it loads the javascript
>> file too.
>>
>> This is a good idea for a Google Summer Of Code, because in practice half of
>> the solution is done. Trinidad javascript plugin contains a code that is
>> capable of parse javascript files (look the obfuscator), so what we need is
>> use this code and create some code that scan for doclets (annotations on the
>> comments), get the information and build a model and finally generate the
>> documentation using a template tool like velocity. Again we have already
>> some code on myfaces builder plugin that could be useful.
>>
>> Trinidad code is very robust. With JSF 2.0, we have a common ajax framework,
>> so in theory it is possible to create custom ajaxified components and make
>> them work together with trinidad. But I think what users wants is to know
>> the details behind it and how they can extend or override trinidad stuff.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>> 2011/3/10 Scott O'Bryan<da...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Walter,
>>>
>>> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
>>> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
>>> framework.
>>>
>>> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
>>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
>>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
>>> done with the framework.
>>>
>>> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
>>> personally. ;)
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão<wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Dominik.
>>>>
>>>> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
>>>> I think Trinidad has:
>>>> - rock solid back-end;
>>>> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
>>> data
>>>> collectors - windows mobile)
>>>> ...
>>>> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
>>> my
>>>> applications to an "up to date UI".
>>>>
>>>> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
>>> don't
>>>> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
>>> help
>>>> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
>>>> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
>>> library.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Walter Mourão
>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn<do...@dominikdorn.com>
>>>>
>>>>> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
>>>>> etc.,
>>>>> I suggest to take a look at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
>>>>> http://www.sproutcore.com
>>>>>
>>>>> and rebuilt those for JSF.
>>>>> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
>>>>> interest, especially
>>>>> in the rails community.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão<wa...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
>>> like
>>>>> to
>>>>>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base
>>> to
>>>>> a
>>>>>> new Trinidad render kit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JQuery<http://jquery.org/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dojo Toolkit<http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (another options ?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Walter Mourão
>>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dominik Dorn
>>>>> http://dominikdorn.com
>>>>> http://twitter.com/domdorn
>>>>>
>>>>> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
>>>>>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Very good points Leonardo, and your right about Trinidad's parser. I
do know that I've seen some stuff in-house which generates
javascriptDoc and even does auditing. Let me check to see if it's
something we can donate or if it's too specific to our legacy code..
On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think one of the problems right now it is necessary to overcome is create
> a javascript documentation maven plugin for trinidad, myfaces core 2.0.x,
> and probably tobago.
>
> If you take a look at the sites of those projects, you'll see there is
> generated javadoc, tlddoc, facelets-tlddoc and other documentation reports
> available on the site. But there is not anything for javascript.
>
> The reason is there is not a maven plugin written in java that do the job.
> In theory it is possible to use jsdoc toolkit, but unfortunately there is
> some code on myfaces core that by its structure can't be documented properly
> with that tool (I already tried it, it just don't), and mozilla rhino causes
> some problems when the goal is executed, because it loads the javascript
> file too.
>
> This is a good idea for a Google Summer Of Code, because in practice half of
> the solution is done. Trinidad javascript plugin contains a code that is
> capable of parse javascript files (look the obfuscator), so what we need is
> use this code and create some code that scan for doclets (annotations on the
> comments), get the information and build a model and finally generate the
> documentation using a template tool like velocity. Again we have already
> some code on myfaces builder plugin that could be useful.
>
> Trinidad code is very robust. With JSF 2.0, we have a common ajax framework,
> so in theory it is possible to create custom ajaxified components and make
> them work together with trinidad. But I think what users wants is to know
> the details behind it and how they can extend or override trinidad stuff.
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> 2011/3/10 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
>
>> Walter,
>>
>> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
>> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
>> framework.
>>
>> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
>> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
>> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
>> done with the framework.
>>
>> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
>> personally. ;)
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Dominik.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
>>> I think Trinidad has:
>>> - rock solid back-end;
>>> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
>> data
>>> collectors - windows mobile)
>>> ...
>>> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
>> my
>>> applications to an "up to date UI".
>>>
>>> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
>> don't
>>> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
>> help
>>> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
>>> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
>> library.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Walter Mourão
>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com>
>>>
>>>> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
>>>> etc.,
>>>> I suggest to take a look at
>>>>
>>>> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
>>>> http://www.sproutcore.com
>>>>
>>>> and rebuilt those for JSF.
>>>> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
>>>> interest, especially
>>>> in the rails community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
>> like
>>>> to
>>>>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base
>> to
>>>> a
>>>>> new Trinidad render kit.
>>>>>
>>>>> JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> (another options ?)
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Walter Mourão
>>>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dominik Dorn
>>>> http://dominikdorn.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/domdorn
>>>>
>>>> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
>>>>
>>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi
I think one of the problems right now it is necessary to overcome is create
a javascript documentation maven plugin for trinidad, myfaces core 2.0.x,
and probably tobago.
If you take a look at the sites of those projects, you'll see there is
generated javadoc, tlddoc, facelets-tlddoc and other documentation reports
available on the site. But there is not anything for javascript.
The reason is there is not a maven plugin written in java that do the job.
In theory it is possible to use jsdoc toolkit, but unfortunately there is
some code on myfaces core that by its structure can't be documented properly
with that tool (I already tried it, it just don't), and mozilla rhino causes
some problems when the goal is executed, because it loads the javascript
file too.
This is a good idea for a Google Summer Of Code, because in practice half of
the solution is done. Trinidad javascript plugin contains a code that is
capable of parse javascript files (look the obfuscator), so what we need is
use this code and create some code that scan for doclets (annotations on the
comments), get the information and build a model and finally generate the
documentation using a template tool like velocity. Again we have already
some code on myfaces builder plugin that could be useful.
Trinidad code is very robust. With JSF 2.0, we have a common ajax framework,
so in theory it is possible to create custom ajaxified components and make
them work together with trinidad. But I think what users wants is to know
the details behind it and how they can extend or override trinidad stuff.
regards,
Leonardo Uribe
2011/3/10 Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
> Walter,
>
> Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
> internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
> framework.
>
> I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
> which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
> support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
> done with the framework.
>
> I really would like to see a project like this get some traction
> personally. ;)
>
> Scott
>
> On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Dominik.
> >
> > Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
> > I think Trinidad has:
> > - rock solid back-end;
> > - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
> data
> > collectors - windows mobile)
> > ...
> > and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
> my
> > applications to an "up to date UI".
> >
> > I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I
> don't
> > have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can
> help
> > much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
> > see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another
> library.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Walter Mourão
> > http://waltermourao.com.br
> > http://arcadian.com.br
> > http://oriens.com.br
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com>
> >
> >> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
> >> etc.,
> >> I suggest to take a look at
> >>
> >> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
> >> http://www.sproutcore.com
> >>
> >> and rebuilt those for JSF.
> >> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
> >> interest, especially
> >> in the rails community.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> >>> Hi folks,
> >>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
> like
> >> to
> >>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base
> to
> >> a
> >>> new Trinidad render kit.
> >>>
> >>> JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
> >>>
> >>> Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
> >>>
> >>> (another options ?)
> >>>
> >>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Walter Mourão
> >>> http://waltermourao.com.br
> >>> http://arcadian.com.br
> >>> http://oriens.com.br
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dominik Dorn
> >> http://dominikdorn.com
> >> http://twitter.com/domdorn
> >>
> >> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
> >>
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Walter,
Yeah, while creating a new renderkit isn't trivial, the Trinidad
internals and API really lend themselves to allowing extensions to the
framework.
I know Oracle, for instance, has a very large renderkit extension
which is based on Trinidad Internals. Now it's mostly geared toward
support of web business applications, but it really shows what can be
done with the framework.
I really would like to see a project like this get some traction personally. ;)
Scott
On Mar 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Dominik.
>
> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
> I think Trinidad has:
> - rock solid back-end;
> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old data
> collectors - windows mobile)
> ...
> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating my
> applications to an "up to date UI".
>
> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I don't
> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can help
> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another library.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Walter Mourão
> http://waltermourao.com.br
> http://arcadian.com.br
> http://oriens.com.br
>
>
>
> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com>
>
>> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
>> etc.,
>> I suggest to take a look at
>>
>> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
>> http://www.sproutcore.com
>>
>> and rebuilt those for JSF.
>> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
>> interest, especially
>> in the rails community.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi folks,
>>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would like
>> to
>>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base to
>> a
>>> new Trinidad render kit.
>>>
>>> JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
>>>
>>> Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>>>
>>> (another options ?)
>>>
>>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Walter Mourão
>>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>>> http://arcadian.com.br
>>> http://oriens.com.br
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dominik Dorn
>> http://dominikdorn.com
>> http://twitter.com/domdorn
>>
>> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
>>
AW: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Eisenträger,
Tobias <To...@arag.de>.
I have created a few components based on jquery and it seems to work pretty good. However - somehow including the libraries somewhere in the core, and not in the template would be good.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Walter Mourão [mailto:walter.mourao@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 6. März 2011 13:39
> An: Dominik Dorn
> Cc: MyFaces Discussion
> Betreff: Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render
> kit
>
> Thank you Dominik.
>
> Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
> I think Trinidad has:
> - rock solid back-end;
> - support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old
> data
> collectors - windows mobile)
> ...
> and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating
> my
> applications to an "up to date UI".
>
> I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I don't
> have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can help
> much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
> see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another library.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Walter Mourão
> http://waltermourao.com.br
> http://arcadian.com.br
> http://oriens.com.br
>
>
>
> 2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com>
>
> > If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
> > etc.,
> > I suggest to take a look at
> >
> > http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
> > http://www.sproutcore.com
> >
> > and rebuilt those for JSF.
> > Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
> > interest, especially
> > in the rails community.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi folks,
> > > following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would
> like
> > to
> > > know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base
> to
> > a
> > > new Trinidad render kit.
> > >
> > > JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
> > >
> > > Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
> > >
> > > (another options ?)
> > >
> > > What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Walter Mourão
> > > http://waltermourao.com.br
> > > http://arcadian.com.br
> > > http://oriens.com.br
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dominik Dorn
> > http://dominikdorn.com
> > http://twitter.com/domdorn
> >
> > Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
> >
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>.
Thank you Dominik.
Just to be clear: the aim is not simply compete...
I think Trinidad has:
- rock solid back-end;
- support to non-javascript browser (I have applications running in old data
collectors - windows mobile)
...
and I would like to keep most of the java code untouched when migrating my
applications to an "up to date UI".
I am personally highly involved in another open source project and I don't
have much experience with JSF/Trinidad internals. I am not sure I can help
much in such a task (create the new render kit), but I'm experimenting to
see if I should go ahead with Trinidad or just migrate to another library.
Best regards,
Walter Mourão
http://waltermourao.com.br
http://arcadian.com.br
http://oriens.com.br
2011/3/6 Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com>
> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces
> etc.,
> I suggest to take a look at
>
> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
> http://www.sproutcore.com
>
> and rebuilt those for JSF.
> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
> interest, especially
> in the rails community.
>
>
>
>
> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi folks,
> > following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would like
> to
> > know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base to
> a
> > new Trinidad render kit.
> >
> > JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
> >
> > Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
> >
> > (another options ?)
> >
> > What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Walter Mourão
> > http://waltermourao.com.br
> > http://arcadian.com.br
> > http://oriens.com.br
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dominik Dorn
> http://dominikdorn.com
> http://twitter.com/domdorn
>
> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
>
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
I do have another suggestion as well. As your looking at these
frameworks and/or UI pieces, keep an eye to HTML5. A lot of
Trinidad's DOM structure was in place to support CSS3/HTML5 type
effects on CSS2/HTML browsers. Since most browsers are getting an
upgrade (even IE) we can gain a lot by making HTML5/CSS3 part of the
initial design.
Scott
On Mar 6, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com> wrote:
> If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces etc.,
> I suggest to take a look at
>
> http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
> http://www.sproutcore.com
>
> and rebuilt those for JSF.
> Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
> interest, especially
> in the rails community.
>
>
>
>
> 2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi folks,
>> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would like to
>> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base to a
>> new Trinidad render kit.
>>
>> JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
>>
>> Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>>
>> (another options ?)
>>
>> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Walter Mourão
>> http://waltermourao.com.br
>> http://arcadian.com.br
>> http://oriens.com.br
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dominik Dorn
> http://dominikdorn.com
> http://twitter.com/domdorn
>
> Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Dominik Dorn <do...@dominikdorn.com>.
If you're really want to compete with PrettyFaces, IceFaces, RichFaces etc.,
I suggest to take a look at
http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
http://www.sproutcore.com
and rebuilt those for JSF.
Sproutcore is currently quite hyped in twitter and gains a lot of
interest, especially
in the rails community.
2011/3/6 Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>:
> Hi folks,
> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would like to
> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base to a
> new Trinidad render kit.
>
> JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
>
> Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>
> (another options ?)
>
> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Walter Mourão
> http://waltermourao.com.br
> http://arcadian.com.br
> http://oriens.com.br
>
--
Dominik Dorn
http://dominikdorn.com
http://twitter.com/domdorn
Tausche Deine Lernunterlagen auf http://wu.studyguru.eu !
Re: [Trinidad] "Best" Javascript package to use in a new render kit
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
For licensing, you can always make a project under the Apache License
which consumes other projects as a requirement (but does not actually
include them). As for whether either of these could be 'included' in
the project, I don't see any real issue there with the exception that
neither is under the ASL. So we'd probably have to escalate this to
legal to see what notice's and such would have to be added to the
project.
Probably the best thing to do is figure out which one people want and
we can come up with a strategy for using it.
Scott
On Mar 6, 2011, at 3:34 AM, "Walter Mourão" <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> following the thread "Concerns about the future of Trinidad" I would like to
> know the opinions about the "best' Javascript package to use as a base to a
> new Trinidad render kit.
>
> JQuery <http://jquery.org/>
>
> Dojo Toolkit <http://dojotoolkit.org/>
>
> (another options ?)
>
> What do you think ? what about the licensing ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Walter Mourão
> http://waltermourao.com.br
> http://arcadian.com.br
> http://oriens.com.br