You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> on 2015/05/08 22:36:07 UTC
What if … just jQuery?
so this is very late in the game but I was just wondering how much better
tapestries client-side support could be if it just simply standardized on
jQuery and gave up on the abstraction layer. Thoughts?
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
(971) 678-5210
http://howardlewisship.com
@hlship
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Massimo Lusetti <ml...@gmail.com>.
For what is worth I do totally agree.
I've switched all my maintained app to use jQuery, the one which are
not already upgraded will remain as they are till the end of (their)
life.
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so this is very late in the game but I was just wondering how much better
> tapestries client-side support could be if it just simply standardized on
> jQuery and gave up on the abstraction layer. Thoughts?
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>
> Creator of Apache Tapestry
>
> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
>
> (971) 678-5210
> http://howardlewisship.com
> @hlship
--
Massimo Lusetti
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Bob Harner <bo...@gmail.com>.
Howard, it seems like you might have some specific examples in mind for how
the client support could be better?
All of the original reasons for the abstraction layer still seem applicable
and worthwhile to me.
I am mostly concerned to being tied to a specific library implementation.We
have first hand experience with tapestry situation pre 5.4.
(Prototype,script aculo)
In the other hand, removing the abstraction layer will indeed make our
client side support much better and robust.
Since we are doing this conversation would it not be better to ditch
jquery,prototype etc in favour of vanilla.js?
More and more people are in favour of vanilla.js
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/04/27/1754230/javascript-devs-is-it-still-worth-learning-jquery
http://thednp.github.io/bootstrap.native/
http://gomakethings.com/ditching-jquery-for-vanilla-js/
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so this is very late in the game but I was just wondering how much better
> tapestries client-side support could be if it just simply standardized on
> jQuery and gave up on the abstraction layer. Thoughts?
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>
> Creator of Apache Tapestry
>
> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
>
> (971) 678-5210
> http://howardlewisship.com
> @hlship
>
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Dimitris Zenios <di...@gmail.com>.
I am mostly concerned to being tied to a specific library implementation.We
have first hand experience with tapestry situation pre 5.4.
(Prototype,script aculo)
In the other hand, removing the abstraction layer will indeed make our
client side support much better and robust.
Since we are doing this conversation would it not be better to ditch
jquery,prototype etc in favour of vanilla.js?
More and more people are in favour of vanilla.js
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/04/27/1754230/javascript-devs-is-it-still-worth-learning-jquery
http://thednp.github.io/bootstrap.native/
http://gomakethings.com/ditching-jquery-for-vanilla-js/
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so this is very late in the game but I was just wondering how much better
> tapestries client-side support could be if it just simply standardized on
> jQuery and gave up on the abstraction layer. Thoughts?
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>
> Creator of Apache Tapestry
>
> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
>
> (971) 678-5210
> http://howardlewisship.com
> @hlship
>
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Jochen Kemnade <jo...@eddyson.de>.
Am 12.05.2015 um 15:50 schrieb Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo:
> Any volunteers to implement the Tapestry JS abstraction layer on pure,
> framework-less JavaScript (aka vanilla.js)? I'd love to see that.
Me too. We could start progress in a new branch, I'd probably have a
look or two.
If we can make it work with IE8, it might even become the default
eventually. If we can't, it can always be an option or a drop-in module.
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 12 May 2015 10:53:31 -0300, Dimitris Zenios
<di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We can use a polyfill for older browsers.But moving on from IE 8 we
> should be ok
Good points, Dimitris! But I suggest we leave that for 5.5. :)
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Dimitris Zenios <di...@gmail.com>.
We can use a polyfill for older browsers.But moving on from IE 8 we should
be ok
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015 10:00:47 -0300, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>
> I'm with Thiago on this one. The abstraction layer is a real benefit as
>> demonstrated by Dimitri's request to ditch jQuery in favor of vanilla.js.
>>
>
> Any volunteers to implement the Tapestry JS abstraction layer on pure,
> framework-less JavaScript (aka vanilla.js)? I'd love to see that. :) I
> don't think we can jump to a vanilla solution directly, without an
> abstraction layer, because of, what else?, IE and also that pesky
> differences between browser implementations.
>
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
> Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
> http://machina.com.br
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 12 May 2015 10:00:47 -0300, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> I'm with Thiago on this one. The abstraction layer is a real benefit as
> demonstrated by Dimitri's request to ditch jQuery in favor of vanilla.js.
Any volunteers to implement the Tapestry JS abstraction layer on pure,
framework-less JavaScript (aka vanilla.js)? I'd love to see that. :) I
don't think we can jump to a vanilla solution directly, without an
abstraction layer, because of, what else?, IE and also that pesky
differences between browser implementations.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:00 PM, "Ulrich Stärk" <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> I'm with Thiago on this one. The abstraction layer is a real benefit as
> demonstrated by Dimitri's request to ditch jQuery in favor of vanilla.js.
> The answer now simply is to write the required connectors and use
> vanilla.js. I know of no other server-side framework offering this kind of
> functionality.
>
Wicket works the same way.
All the JS APIs are in Wicket.** namespace.
By default Wicket comes with jQuery based impl but anyone could provide its
own impl with his/her favorite JS library.
For the last 3 years I haven't heard of anyone working on an alternative
implementation.
> Uli
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 20:59, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 May 2015 17:36:07 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> so this is very late in the game but I was just wondering how much
> >> better
> >> tapestries client-side support could be if it just simply standardized
> >> on
> >> jQuery and gave up on the abstraction layer. Thoughts?
> >
> > -1 from me. I like the abstraction layer very much. I think the project
> > has been burned twice by using a JS framework directly (Dojo in T4,
> > Prototype in T5), so, specially with native JavaScript functions covering
> > more and more of what we use jQuery and Prototype for (what Dmitri called
> > vanilla JS), I think using any framework directly out-of-the-box is a bad
> > idea. We already have the abstraction layer anyway, so why not keep it?
> > Another downside would be a huge gap in backward compatibility, another
> > problem Tapestry already suffered a lot in the past.
> >
> > --
> > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
> > Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
> > http://machina.com.br
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>.
I'm with Thiago on this one. The abstraction layer is a real benefit as
demonstrated by Dimitri's request to ditch jQuery in favor of vanilla.js.
The answer now simply is to write the required connectors and use
vanilla.js. I know of no other server-side framework offering this kind of
functionality.
Uli
On Mon, May 11, 2015 20:59, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2015 17:36:07 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> so this is very late in the game but I was just wondering how much
>> better
>> tapestries client-side support could be if it just simply standardized
>> on
>> jQuery and gave up on the abstraction layer. Thoughts?
>
> -1 from me. I like the abstraction layer very much. I think the project
> has been burned twice by using a JS framework directly (Dojo in T4,
> Prototype in T5), so, specially with native JavaScript functions covering
> more and more of what we use jQuery and Prototype for (what Dmitri called
> vanilla JS), I think using any framework directly out-of-the-box is a bad
> idea. We already have the abstraction layer anyway, so why not keep it?
> Another downside would be a huge gap in backward compatibility, another
> problem Tapestry already suffered a lot in the past.
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
> Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
> http://machina.com.br
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 08 May 2015 17:36:07 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> so this is very late in the game but I was just wondering how much better
> tapestries client-side support could be if it just simply standardized on
> jQuery and gave up on the abstraction layer. Thoughts?
-1 from me. I like the abstraction layer very much. I think the project
has been burned twice by using a JS framework directly (Dojo in T4,
Prototype in T5), so, specially with native JavaScript functions covering
more and more of what we use jQuery and Prototype for (what Dmitri called
vanilla JS), I think using any framework directly out-of-the-box is a bad
idea. We already have the abstraction layer anyway, so why not keep it?
Another downside would be a huge gap in backward compatibility, another
problem Tapestry already suffered a lot in the past.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 09 May 2015 17:58:06 -0300, Lance Java <la...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> I'm ok with using jquery directly, it would be interesting to know if
> anyone is actually using 5.4 + prototype (I doubt it).
Project which were born in previous versions most probably still use
Prototype.js even after upgrading to T5.4.
> Projects The good thing about jquery, compared to prototype, is that it
> doesn't pollute existing
> javascript objects (eg string). jquery is 35kb minified/gzipped, if
> people want to use a different 'foundation' framework than jquery, I
> doubt the
> extra 35kb is a deal breaker to have both in use.
The extra kilobytes wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, but the lack of
backward compatibility and depending directly on any JS framework are,
IMHO.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: What if … just jQuery?
Posted by Lance Java <la...@googlemail.com>.
I'm ok with using jquery directly, it would be interesting to know if
anyone is actually using 5.4 + prototype (I doubt it). The good thing about
jquery, compared to prototype, is that it doesn't pollute existing
javascript objects (eg string). jquery is 35kb minified/gzipped, if people
want to use a different 'foundation' framework than jquery, I doubt the
extra 35kb is a deal breaker to have both in use.