You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com> on 2006/03/28 17:00:27 UTC
JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
>I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
>discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because the
>browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from their ml
>some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will be missing
>in the next versions.
If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
us well to challenge that philosophy.
Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
"You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
-- Robert Moog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Ian Roughley <ia...@fdar.com>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
>On 3/28/06, Ian Roughley <ia...@fdar.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Alex - I definately agree with you, somewhat ;) - if this is a simple
>>calendar,
>>or other lightweight widget there is no need to involve an ajax library
>>download. *Any* ajax library download. But I do think there is a need
>>for an
>>ajax theme when the user is ready to use one. So how do we deferentiate
>>between these?
>>
>>Joe - I think the UI tags are very library agnostic. It was reasonably
>>simple
>>to add in the dojo support once we had the <ww:a .../>, <ww:div .../>
>>etc. tags
>>in place. Dojo just happened to be the initial implementation. We could
>>definately outline what the core components are (JS widget and ajax
>>widget) and
>>the attributes and functionality that is expected from a tag API
>>standpoint, and
>>then have different implementations of the tag themes for
>>implementation.
>>
>>
>
>
>The question here is whether the developer should pick one toolkit and run
>with it, or should be able to pick different widgets that come from
>different toolkits. Most people seem to want to do the latter, but that is
>highly problematic. For one thing, few random combinations of DHTML toolkits
>will work together properly. For another, the browser will end up
>downloading and evaluating much more code than is really necessary,
>impacting performance.
>
>
I would definitely agree with you - try to keep within UI theme
boundaries whenever possible, especially when using ajax themes.
>Additionally, when talking about this last month (or
>
>
>>was it longer now?) we
>>(Ranier, Rene, Alex and Mike) were all thinking in the same vein. One
>>thing
>>that we wanted to add was an action/inteface that returned JSON so that
>>any
>>ajax implementation could use the same server implementation to provide
>>list
>>data.
>>
>>
>
>
>Yes, a JSON serialiser would be A Good Thing (tm) to have. The hard part,
>though, is getting people to agree on what you encode in JSON and how. ;-)
>Without that, you don't have interoperability.
>
>
Perhaps I should have explained a little better. The action / interface
that was proposed was something like:
List getData();
So, the information in the list would be highly dependent on the feature
being developed. Thus, we could use the attribute names and values (and
possibly walking into more complex values in a similar nature). As the
data is dependent on the feature, and the developer will most likely be
working on the action and the view, I think we would be ok.
>--
>Martin Cooper
>
>
>The question really is do we bundle the libaries and the implementations
>
>
>>with
>>the SAF 2.0 release or should there be a seperate project where the
>>different
>>library integrations live? Althought we could extract them into a
>>optional
>>project, I think there is benifit in provide a basic implementation.
>>
>>/Ian
>>
>>
>>Quoting Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Joe, I mostly agree with you. What I've been trying to say is that most
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>the user will not like to have a big dependency on Dojo for simple
>>>functionality like a calendar component. And I agree, this is my case
>>>
>>>
>>too. I
>>
>>
>>>would prefere something small and working almost everywhere. We have
>>>
>>>
>>even
>>
>>
>>>been thinking to add a new AJAX theme based on lighter solutions (a la
>>>prototype). And if this will work, I would almost sure vote for removing
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>dependency on Dojo. But this is way to personal :-).
>>>
>>>./alex
>>>--
>>>.w( the_mindstorm )p.
>>>
>>>
>>>On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
>>>>>discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>>browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>their
>>
>>
>>>>ml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>be missing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>in the next versions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
>>>>5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
>>>>spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
>>>>
>>>>That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
>>>>pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
>>>>features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
>>>>dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
>>>>myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
>>>>community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
>>>>us well to challenge that philosophy.
>>>>
>>>>Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
>>>>try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
>>>>
>>>>Joe
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Joe Germuska
>>>>Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
>>>>
>>>>"You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
>>>>even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
>>>> -- Robert Moog
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 3/28/06, Ian Roughley <ia...@fdar.com> wrote:
>
> Alex - I definately agree with you, somewhat ;) - if this is a simple
> calendar,
> or other lightweight widget there is no need to involve an ajax library
> download. *Any* ajax library download. But I do think there is a need
> for an
> ajax theme when the user is ready to use one. So how do we deferentiate
> between these?
>
> Joe - I think the UI tags are very library agnostic. It was reasonably
> simple
> to add in the dojo support once we had the <ww:a .../>, <ww:div .../>
> etc. tags
> in place. Dojo just happened to be the initial implementation. We could
> definately outline what the core components are (JS widget and ajax
> widget) and
> the attributes and functionality that is expected from a tag API
> standpoint, and
> then have different implementations of the tag themes for
> implementation.
The question here is whether the developer should pick one toolkit and run
with it, or should be able to pick different widgets that come from
different toolkits. Most people seem to want to do the latter, but that is
highly problematic. For one thing, few random combinations of DHTML toolkits
will work together properly. For another, the browser will end up
downloading and evaluating much more code than is really necessary,
impacting performance.
Additionally, when talking about this last month (or
> was it longer now?) we
> (Ranier, Rene, Alex and Mike) were all thinking in the same vein. One
> thing
> that we wanted to add was an action/inteface that returned JSON so that
> any
> ajax implementation could use the same server implementation to provide
> list
> data.
Yes, a JSON serialiser would be A Good Thing (tm) to have. The hard part,
though, is getting people to agree on what you encode in JSON and how. ;-)
Without that, you don't have interoperability.
--
Martin Cooper
The question really is do we bundle the libaries and the implementations
> with
> the SAF 2.0 release or should there be a seperate project where the
> different
> library integrations live? Althought we could extract them into a
> optional
> project, I think there is benifit in provide a basic implementation.
>
> /Ian
>
>
> Quoting Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Joe, I mostly agree with you. What I've been trying to say is that most
> of
> > the user will not like to have a big dependency on Dojo for simple
> > functionality like a calendar component. And I agree, this is my case
> too. I
> > would prefere something small and working almost everywhere. We have
> even
> > been thinking to add a new AJAX theme based on lighter solutions (a la
> > prototype). And if this will work, I would almost sure vote for removing
> the
> > dependency on Dojo. But this is way to personal :-).
> >
> > ./alex
> > --
> > .w( the_mindstorm )p.
> >
> >
> > On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
> >> >discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because
> the
> >> >browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from
> their
> >> ml
> >> >some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
> >> be missing
> >> >in the next versions.
> >>
> >> If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
> >> 5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
> >> spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
> >>
> >> That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
> >> pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
> >> features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
> >> dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
> >> myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
> >> community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
> >> us well to challenge that philosophy.
> >>
> >> Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
> >> try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joe Germuska
> >> Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
> >>
> >> "You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
> >> even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
> >> -- Robert Moog
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Ian Roughley <ia...@fdar.com>.
Alex - I definately agree with you, somewhat ;) - if this is a simple
calendar,
or other lightweight widget there is no need to involve an ajax library
download. *Any* ajax library download. But I do think there is a need for an
ajax theme when the user is ready to use one. So how do we deferentiate
between these?
Joe - I think the UI tags are very library agnostic. It was reasonably simple
to add in the dojo support once we had the <ww:a .../>, <ww:div .../>
etc. tags
in place. Dojo just happened to be the initial implementation. We could
definately outline what the core components are (JS widget and ajax
widget) and
the attributes and functionality that is expected from a tag API
standpoint, and
then have different implementations of the tag themes for
implementation. Additionally, when talking about this last month (or
was it longer now?) we
(Ranier, Rene, Alex and Mike) were all thinking in the same vein. One thing
that we wanted to add was an action/inteface that returned JSON so that any
ajax implementation could use the same server implementation to provide list
data.
The question really is do we bundle the libaries and the implementations with
the SAF 2.0 release or should there be a seperate project where the different
library integrations live? Althought we could extract them into a optional
project, I think there is benifit in provide a basic implementation.
/Ian
Quoting Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com>:
> Joe, I mostly agree with you. What I've been trying to say is that most of
> the user will not like to have a big dependency on Dojo for simple
> functionality like a calendar component. And I agree, this is my case too. I
> would prefere something small and working almost everywhere. We have even
> been thinking to add a new AJAX theme based on lighter solutions (a la
> prototype). And if this will work, I would almost sure vote for removing the
> dependency on Dojo. But this is way to personal :-).
>
> ./alex
> --
> .w( the_mindstorm )p.
>
>
> On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
>> >discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because the
>> >browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from their
>> ml
>> >some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
>> be missing
>> >in the next versions.
>>
>> If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
>> 5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
>> spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
>>
>> That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
>> pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
>> features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
>> dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
>> myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
>> community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
>> us well to challenge that philosophy.
>>
>> Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
>> try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> --
>> Joe Germuska
>> Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
>>
>> "You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
>> even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
>> -- Robert Moog
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 3/28/06, Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/28/06, Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would prefere something small and working almost everywhere. We have
> even
> > been thinking to add a new AJAX theme based on lighter solutions (a la
> > prototype).
>
> Heh, and I considered Prototype too heavy (around 50K) to adopt for my
> project...
Prototype's heaviness is in its feet - it will quite happily stomp all over
any other JavaScript code you have on the page. It's really a very badly
behaved chunk of code.
--
Martin Cooper
Michael.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com>.
On 3/28/06, Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would prefere something small and working almost everywhere. We have even
> been thinking to add a new AJAX theme based on lighter solutions (a la
> prototype).
Heh, and I considered Prototype too heavy (around 50K) to adopt for my
project...
Michael.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 3/28/06, Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joe, I mostly agree with you. What I've been trying to say is that most of
> the user will not like to have a big dependency on Dojo for simple
> functionality like a calendar component.
The "size" of the dependency on Dojo is _completely_ up to you. Unlike the
other DHTML toolkits out there, you can very easily build a custom profile
that includes only what you need, and almost none of the code you don't
need.
The minimal profile of Dojo is very small. Right now, it looks like WW uses
the kitchen sink profile, which is pretty much everything Dojo has. I can
understand why you would not want to load all of that for just a calendar.
But you don't have to. That is the beauty of the Dojo profile system.
--
Martin Cooper
And I agree, this is my case too. I
> would prefere something small and working almost everywhere. We have even
> been thinking to add a new AJAX theme based on lighter solutions (a la
> prototype). And if this will work, I would almost sure vote for removing
> the
> dependency on Dojo. But this is way to personal :-).
>
> ./alex
> --
> .w( the_mindstorm )p.
>
>
> On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
> > >discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because
> the
> > >browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from
> their
> > ml
> > >some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
> > be missing
> > >in the next versions.
> >
> > If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
> > 5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
> > spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
> >
> > That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
> > pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
> > features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
> > dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
> > myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
> > community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
> > us well to challenge that philosophy.
> >
> > Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
> > try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > --
> > Joe Germuska
> > Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
> >
> > "You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
> > even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
> > -- Robert Moog
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com>.
Joe, I mostly agree with you. What I've been trying to say is that most of
the user will not like to have a big dependency on Dojo for simple
functionality like a calendar component. And I agree, this is my case too. I
would prefere something small and working almost everywhere. We have even
been thinking to add a new AJAX theme based on lighter solutions (a la
prototype). And if this will work, I would almost sure vote for removing the
dependency on Dojo. But this is way to personal :-).
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>
> >I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
> >discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because the
> >browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from their
> ml
> >some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
> be missing
> >in the next versions.
>
> If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
> 5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
> spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
>
> That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
> pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
> features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
> dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
> myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
> community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
> us well to challenge that philosophy.
>
> Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
> try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
>
> Joe
>
> --
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
>
> "You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
> even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
> -- Robert Moog
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 4/12/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> (Yeah, I'm very late catching up...)
>
> On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>
> > >I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
> > >discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because
> > the
> > >browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from
> > their ml
> > >some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
> > be missing
> > >in the next versions.
> >
> > If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php , IE
> > 5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
> > spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
>
>
> It's not just lack of market share. IE 5.5 has some serious deficiencies
> when it comes to DHTML and DOM manipulation. So the question becomes one of
> how much effort do you want to put in to support a minimally used browser,
> and negatively impact performance on more modern browsers at the same time.
> IMHO, the Dojo folks made the right decision.
>
Important Correction: I mis-spoke here. It's not IE 5.5 that has the
problems, it's IE 5.0. And even more importantly, Dojo *does* support IE 5.5,
but does not support IE 5.0. So if anyone has been having issues with Dojo
and IE 5.5, be sure to submit bug reports via Trac, and they'll be
addressed.
--
Martin Cooper
That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
> > pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
> > features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
> > dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
> > myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
> > community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
> > us well to challenge that philosophy.
> >
> > Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
> > try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
>
>
> Well, in theory, yes. In practice, in the general case, I seriously doubt
> it. To really accomplish that, we'd end up building yet another custom
> abstraction. That would (a) negatively impact performance, and (b) eliminate
> the option of using certain toolkits ( e.g. Dojo) the way they were
> designed to be used, viz _without_ an abstraction layer on top of the
> browser.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> Joe
> >
> > --
> > Joe Germuska
> > Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
> >
> > "You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
> > even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
> > -- Robert Moog
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Ian Roughley <ia...@fdar.com>.
I have some other things going on over the next few weeks that will mesh
nicely with documenting how to do this.
/Ian
Don Brown wrote:
> I think the answer to all this is the built-in themes. Right now, I'm
> proposing that the current themes use Dojo where an advanced widget is
> needed, however there could very well be a "prototype" theme, or the
> user could replace the default head.ftl (that loads dojo) with their
> own. Component themes, and the ease of overriding a given template,
> is a very powerful concept. This is definitely something we'll need
> to document more.
>
> Don
>
> Martin Cooper wrote:
>
>> (Yeah, I'm very late catching up...)
>>
>> On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
>>>> discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo,
>>>> because the
>>>> browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from
>>>> their
>>>>
>>>
>>> ml
>>>
>>>
>>>> some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
>>>>
>>>
>>> be missing
>>>
>>>
>>>> in the next versions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
>>> 5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
>>> spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not just lack of market share. IE 5.5 has some serious deficiencies
>> when it comes to DHTML and DOM manipulation. So the question becomes
>> one of
>> how much effort do you want to put in to support a minimally used
>> browser,
>> and negatively impact performance on more modern browsers at the same
>> time.
>> IMHO, the Dojo folks made the right decision.
>>
>> That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
>>
>>
>>> pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
>>> features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
>>> dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
>>> myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
>>> community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
>>> us well to challenge that philosophy.
>>>
>>> Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
>>> try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, in theory, yes. In practice, in the general case, I seriously
>> doubt
>> it. To really accomplish that, we'd end up building yet another custom
>> abstraction. That would (a) negatively impact performance, and (b)
>> eliminate
>> the option of using certain toolkits (e.g. Dojo) the way they were
>> designed
>> to be used, viz _without_ an abstraction layer on top of the browser.
>>
>> --
>> Martin Cooper
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Joe Germuska
>>> Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
>>>
>>> "You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
>>> even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
>>> -- Robert Moog
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
I think the answer to all this is the built-in themes. Right now, I'm
proposing that the current themes use Dojo where an advanced widget is
needed, however there could very well be a "prototype" theme, or the
user could replace the default head.ftl (that loads dojo) with their
own. Component themes, and the ease of overriding a given template, is
a very powerful concept. This is definitely something we'll need to
document more.
Don
Martin Cooper wrote:
> (Yeah, I'm very late catching up...)
>
> On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>
>>> I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
>>> discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because the
>>> browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from their
>>>
>> ml
>>
>>> some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
>>>
>> be missing
>>
>>> in the next versions.
>>>
>> If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
>> 5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
>> spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
>>
>
>
> It's not just lack of market share. IE 5.5 has some serious deficiencies
> when it comes to DHTML and DOM manipulation. So the question becomes one of
> how much effort do you want to put in to support a minimally used browser,
> and negatively impact performance on more modern browsers at the same time.
> IMHO, the Dojo folks made the right decision.
>
> That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
>
>> pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
>> features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
>> dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
>> myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
>> community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
>> us well to challenge that philosophy.
>>
>> Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
>> try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
>>
>
>
> Well, in theory, yes. In practice, in the general case, I seriously doubt
> it. To really accomplish that, we'd end up building yet another custom
> abstraction. That would (a) negatively impact performance, and (b) eliminate
> the option of using certain toolkits (e.g. Dojo) the way they were designed
> to be used, viz _without_ an abstraction layer on top of the browser.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> Joe
>
>> --
>> Joe Germuska
>> Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
>>
>> "You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
>> even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
>> -- Robert Moog
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: JS Libraries (was Re: [WebWork2] TODO)
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
(Yeah, I'm very late catching up...)
On 3/28/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>
> >I had very bad experiences with Dojo so far, and I brought this into
> >discussion on ww forums. I wouldn't encourage moving to Dojo, because the
> >browser support is still lacking, and from the feeling we got from their
> ml
> >some of the old browsers, that are still used (f.e. IE 5.5) will
> be missing
> >in the next versions.
>
> If you believe http://thecounter.com/stats/2006/March/browser.php, IE
> 5.5 only has 2% market share. I wouldn't blame a project for not
> spending a large amount of resources supporting that.
It's not just lack of market share. IE 5.5 has some serious deficiencies
when it comes to DHTML and DOM manipulation. So the question becomes one of
how much effort do you want to put in to support a minimally used browser,
and negatively impact performance on more modern browsers at the same time.
IMHO, the Dojo folks made the right decision.
That said, I think we should try to keep the JS libraries as
> pluggable as possible. But maybe it's impossible to bundle valuable
> features and still do that -- I was really surprised at how many
> dependencies Webwork accepted, and I'm still trying to work out for
> myself whether that's better in the long run. I think the Struts
> community philosophy was very conservative about that, but it may do
> us well to challenge that philosophy.
>
> Still, having roots in that philosophy, again my inclination is to
> try to be more library agnostic. Can that work?
Well, in theory, yes. In practice, in the general case, I seriously doubt
it. To really accomplish that, we'd end up building yet another custom
abstraction. That would (a) negatively impact performance, and (b) eliminate
the option of using certain toolkits (e.g. Dojo) the way they were designed
to be used, viz _without_ an abstraction layer on top of the browser.
--
Martin Cooper
Joe
>
> --
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
>
> "You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
> even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
> -- Robert Moog
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>