You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jspwiki.apache.org by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com> on 2014/01/06 06:40:48 UTC
Mootools vs. jQuery
Hi,
I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of Mootools is,
i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of our own
projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and in a
plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts with
using
both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not pretty).
I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more widespread
than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects such as
jQuery
UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools.
Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes) the
JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of one of
the editors, or some other reason?
Thanks for any info.
Ichiro
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>.
I've added a new issue for this, JSPWIKI-811 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-811).
Ichiro
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Dirk Frederickx
<di...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Ichiro,
>
> I do not dispute jQuery's popularity.
> If switching to jQuery helps in having in broader developer base for the
> javascript, I'am all for it.
>
> Anyway, I prefer to first switch to the new template and the rewritten css
> & js. Refactoring to jQuery will be more easy then.
>
> * * *
>
> I propose you log a JIRA improvement ticket to move to jQuery, so we can
> track the discussion there.
>
>
> dirk
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Ichiro Furusato
> <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hi Dirk,
> >
> > Thanks for all of the information on Mootools' history and plans for
> > the future. I think the question of Mootools vs. jQuery can be answered
> > fairly easily, based on one question: how important is it for developers
> > and users of JSPWiki to be able to modify and augment the JavaScript
> > used on their wikis (or on the Apache project itself)?
> >
> > If the majority of the JS is to be done by developers on the project such
> > as you, and there's little expectation of anyone else doing JS work, then
> > sticking with Mootools and/or CSS3 sounds fine.
> >
> > I would (and suppose am) advocate for jQuery simply because, as noted
> > by Janne and myself, jQuery has become so widespread that we can
> > expect that there is a significantly larger pool of people who know it
> and
> > know how it works, and that understanding lends itself to more people
> > being able to both debug as well as add features to both the Apache
> > project and their own wikis. By comparison, I don't see much in the way
> > for Mootools. Google has almost 38 million hits for jQuery, 946,000 for
> > Mootools. Likewise, I'd prefer we not use CCS3 simply because it's less
> > supported than jQuery (i.e., one can rely on jQuery) and again, much
> > better understood than CSS3's more advanced features.
> >
> > I'm myself learning jQuery and as I noted, will in a few months (like it
> or
> > not) have become a jQuery expert (I'll be working on a large fat client
> > project that uses jQuery). I'd be very wary of trying to modify the
> > existing Mootool-based code simply because I'm unfamiliar with it, and
> > I won't have time to learn Yet Another Framework anytime soon. So I
> > might in some sense be a typical JSPWiki "user" in this regard. Also,
> > using jQuery opens up possibilities for using other libraries such as
> D3.js
> > (something Neocortext is doing).
> >
> > I can understand your advocacy and investment in Mootools, but hope
> > you might consider the benefits to the JSPWiki project of moving
> > towards jQuery -- it would bring a lot more people to a place where
> > they could actively participate in the JavaScript-based aspects of the
> > project.
> >
> > Thanks for reading,
> >
> > Ichiro
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Dirk Frederickx
> > <di...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > As Janne pointed out, mootools was chosen as it was the more
> performant,
> > > light-weight and feature-rich js framework at the time we started with
> > > javascript on JSPWiki.
> > >
> > > Today, mootools and jquery are feature-wise comparable, but jquery
> > > definitely has won the popularity contest. I still prefer the mootools
> > > api, because it also plays nice as an object oriented extension of the
> > > javascript encouraging better design, ...
> > > but of-course I may be biased ;-)
> > >
> > > In the past, there was relatively little JSPWiki community activity on
> > the
> > > front of the template javascript. The prime focus of the JSPWiki
> > developers
> > > community was and still is on the java/jsp part.
> > > Therefore, there has never been a need (nor much discussion) to switch
> > to a
> > > more popular js framework library.
> > >
> > >
> > > * * *
> > >
> > >
> > > Currently, I have been preparing for a major update of the template,
> > > including a full rewrite of the css and javascript which is still
> based
> > on
> > > mootools. This work started already on v3.0.0, but got pushed back in
> > time
> > > a bit ..
> > > => Once 2.10.0 is out of the door, I plan to start checking in the new
> > > template.
> > >
> > > - the new template will be based on html5 and css3;
> > >
> > > - the source files of the javascript and css will be modularised; and
> the
> > > css will be build in LESS. WRO4J was added already to the maven scripts
> > to
> > > build/compose/compress the modularised css and javascripts sources.
> > > In general, this will simplify the maintenance of the css and js
> sources.
> > >
> > > - posteditor.js will (finally) be deprecated; and replaced by a new
> > editor;
> > > possibly bringing a native wysiwyg editor to JSPWiki.
> > >
> > > - the new css stylesheet will be build on top of BOOTSTRAP, the
> > > css-framework of Twitter, to encourage skin and stylesheet writers.
> This
> > > will bring better support for other display types (tablets,
> > smartphones...)
> > > ; and much more ...
> > >
> > > - animations will gradually shift to css-based animations.
> > >
> > > - a number of long-standing jira issues on the template will be
> addressed
> > >
> > >
> > > * * *
> > >
> > >
> > > On the long-run, switching over to jQuery could be considered, if the
> > > community around JSPWiki would see the benefit from that.
> > > The api's of mootools and query are different but at the same time very
> > > similar -- so switching should not be overly complicated.
> > >
> > > As browsers are becoming more 'compatible', and with the rise of html5
> > and
> > > css3; there is less and less need for the "fat" javascript frameworks
> of
> > > the past. (eg animations can now be done in css; so much of the js
> > > library code can be removed)
> > >
> > > So, rather than moving to jQuery, we may also consider to move towards
> > one
> > > of the upcoming js-micro-frameworks (such as underscore, backbone,
> > > angularjs, prime...) with much less code-weight.
> > >
> > > IMO adopting a strong and popular CSS framework, may be for JSPWiki
> > > Community more important; as it may stimulate a stylesheet/skin
> > community,
> > > and be key to attract more JSPWiki users / developers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > groet,
> > >
> > > dirk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > jspwiki-commonstyles.js uses mootools, at least for some of the
> > effects;
> > > > posteditor (non minified source:
> > > > http://icebeat.bitacoras.com/public/mootools/posteditor/) is also
> > based
> > > on
> > > > mootools
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > br,
> > > > juan pablo
> > > >
> > > > p.s.: Ichiro, hope you'll evade the asylum ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ichiro Furusato
> > > > <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Janne,
> > > > >
> > > > > I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I
> hardly
> > > call
> > > > > myself
> > > > > a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do
> > JavaScript,
> > > so
> > > > > guilty as charged.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not
> > > > > that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile
> > > stuff
> > > > > is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that
> > uses
> > > > > the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have
> > > clients
> > > > > with IE8...
> > > > >
> > > > > In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript
> > files:
> > > > >
> > > > > - src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js
> > > > > - src/main/scripts/posteditor.js
> > > > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K)
> > > > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K)
> > > > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K)
> > > > > - src/main/scripts/prettify.js
> > > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js
> > > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla
> > > 1024x768/skin.js
> > > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js
> > > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js
> > > > > - src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js
> > > > > + src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js
> > > > >
> > > > > Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files
> it
> > > > looks
> > > > > like
> > > > > only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only
> > > seems
> > > > to
> > > > > use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though
> > > > jspwiki-edit.js
> > > > > and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would
> > seem
> > > > > that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit.
> > > > >
> > > > > [If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.]
> > > > >
> > > > > A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll
> be a
> > > > > JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking
> forward
> > > > > to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a
> position
> > > to
> > > > > offer
> > > > > for awhile.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ichiro
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen <
> > > > Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable
> > alternative,
> > > > and
> > > > > > Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with
> > Mootools.
> > > > > Since
> > > > > > then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to
> use
> > > > > > anything else (despite several people promising that they'd
> > > contribute
> > > > a
> > > > > > new default template ;-).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work
> > we're
> > > > > often
> > > > > > interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask
> > them
> > > > to
> > > > > > make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all
> confused
> > > and
> > > > > > teary-eyed.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /Janne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <
> > > ichiro.furusato@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of
> > > > Mootools
> > > > > > is,
> > > > > > > i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all
> > of
> > > > our
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > > projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery,
> > and
> > > > in a
> > > > > > > plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are
> > conflicts
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not
> > > > pretty).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously
> more
> > > > > > widespread
> > > > > > > than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects
> > > such
> > > > as
> > > > > > > jQuery
> > > > > > > UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over
> > Mootools.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the
> > changes)
> > > > the
> > > > > > > JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because
> > of
> > > > one
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the editors, or some other reason?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for any info.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ichiro
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Dirk Frederickx <di...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ichiro,
I do not dispute jQuery's popularity.
If switching to jQuery helps in having in broader developer base for the
javascript, I'am all for it.
Anyway, I prefer to first switch to the new template and the rewritten css
& js. Refactoring to jQuery will be more easy then.
* * *
I propose you log a JIRA improvement ticket to move to jQuery, so we can
track the discussion there.
dirk
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Ichiro Furusato
<ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
>
> Thanks for all of the information on Mootools' history and plans for
> the future. I think the question of Mootools vs. jQuery can be answered
> fairly easily, based on one question: how important is it for developers
> and users of JSPWiki to be able to modify and augment the JavaScript
> used on their wikis (or on the Apache project itself)?
>
> If the majority of the JS is to be done by developers on the project such
> as you, and there's little expectation of anyone else doing JS work, then
> sticking with Mootools and/or CSS3 sounds fine.
>
> I would (and suppose am) advocate for jQuery simply because, as noted
> by Janne and myself, jQuery has become so widespread that we can
> expect that there is a significantly larger pool of people who know it and
> know how it works, and that understanding lends itself to more people
> being able to both debug as well as add features to both the Apache
> project and their own wikis. By comparison, I don't see much in the way
> for Mootools. Google has almost 38 million hits for jQuery, 946,000 for
> Mootools. Likewise, I'd prefer we not use CCS3 simply because it's less
> supported than jQuery (i.e., one can rely on jQuery) and again, much
> better understood than CSS3's more advanced features.
>
> I'm myself learning jQuery and as I noted, will in a few months (like it or
> not) have become a jQuery expert (I'll be working on a large fat client
> project that uses jQuery). I'd be very wary of trying to modify the
> existing Mootool-based code simply because I'm unfamiliar with it, and
> I won't have time to learn Yet Another Framework anytime soon. So I
> might in some sense be a typical JSPWiki "user" in this regard. Also,
> using jQuery opens up possibilities for using other libraries such as D3.js
> (something Neocortext is doing).
>
> I can understand your advocacy and investment in Mootools, but hope
> you might consider the benefits to the JSPWiki project of moving
> towards jQuery -- it would bring a lot more people to a place where
> they could actively participate in the JavaScript-based aspects of the
> project.
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Ichiro
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Dirk Frederickx
> <di...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > As Janne pointed out, mootools was chosen as it was the more performant,
> > light-weight and feature-rich js framework at the time we started with
> > javascript on JSPWiki.
> >
> > Today, mootools and jquery are feature-wise comparable, but jquery
> > definitely has won the popularity contest. I still prefer the mootools
> > api, because it also plays nice as an object oriented extension of the
> > javascript encouraging better design, ...
> > but of-course I may be biased ;-)
> >
> > In the past, there was relatively little JSPWiki community activity on
> the
> > front of the template javascript. The prime focus of the JSPWiki
> developers
> > community was and still is on the java/jsp part.
> > Therefore, there has never been a need (nor much discussion) to switch
> to a
> > more popular js framework library.
> >
> >
> > * * *
> >
> >
> > Currently, I have been preparing for a major update of the template,
> > including a full rewrite of the css and javascript which is still based
> on
> > mootools. This work started already on v3.0.0, but got pushed back in
> time
> > a bit ..
> > => Once 2.10.0 is out of the door, I plan to start checking in the new
> > template.
> >
> > - the new template will be based on html5 and css3;
> >
> > - the source files of the javascript and css will be modularised; and the
> > css will be build in LESS. WRO4J was added already to the maven scripts
> to
> > build/compose/compress the modularised css and javascripts sources.
> > In general, this will simplify the maintenance of the css and js sources.
> >
> > - posteditor.js will (finally) be deprecated; and replaced by a new
> editor;
> > possibly bringing a native wysiwyg editor to JSPWiki.
> >
> > - the new css stylesheet will be build on top of BOOTSTRAP, the
> > css-framework of Twitter, to encourage skin and stylesheet writers. This
> > will bring better support for other display types (tablets,
> smartphones...)
> > ; and much more ...
> >
> > - animations will gradually shift to css-based animations.
> >
> > - a number of long-standing jira issues on the template will be addressed
> >
> >
> > * * *
> >
> >
> > On the long-run, switching over to jQuery could be considered, if the
> > community around JSPWiki would see the benefit from that.
> > The api's of mootools and query are different but at the same time very
> > similar -- so switching should not be overly complicated.
> >
> > As browsers are becoming more 'compatible', and with the rise of html5
> and
> > css3; there is less and less need for the "fat" javascript frameworks of
> > the past. (eg animations can now be done in css; so much of the js
> > library code can be removed)
> >
> > So, rather than moving to jQuery, we may also consider to move towards
> one
> > of the upcoming js-micro-frameworks (such as underscore, backbone,
> > angularjs, prime...) with much less code-weight.
> >
> > IMO adopting a strong and popular CSS framework, may be for JSPWiki
> > Community more important; as it may stimulate a stylesheet/skin
> community,
> > and be key to attract more JSPWiki users / developers.
> >
> >
> >
> > groet,
> >
> > dirk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > jspwiki-commonstyles.js uses mootools, at least for some of the
> effects;
> > > posteditor (non minified source:
> > > http://icebeat.bitacoras.com/public/mootools/posteditor/) is also
> based
> > on
> > > mootools
> > >
> > >
> > > br,
> > > juan pablo
> > >
> > > p.s.: Ichiro, hope you'll evade the asylum ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ichiro Furusato
> > > <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Janne,
> > > >
> > > > I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I hardly
> > call
> > > > myself
> > > > a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do
> JavaScript,
> > so
> > > > guilty as charged.
> > > >
> > > > But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not
> > > > that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile
> > stuff
> > > > is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that
> uses
> > > > the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have
> > clients
> > > > with IE8...
> > > >
> > > > In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript
> files:
> > > >
> > > > - src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js
> > > > - src/main/scripts/posteditor.js
> > > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K)
> > > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K)
> > > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K)
> > > > - src/main/scripts/prettify.js
> > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js
> > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla
> > 1024x768/skin.js
> > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js
> > > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js
> > > > - src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js
> > > > + src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js
> > > >
> > > > Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files it
> > > looks
> > > > like
> > > > only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only
> > seems
> > > to
> > > > use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though
> > > jspwiki-edit.js
> > > > and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would
> seem
> > > > that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit.
> > > >
> > > > [If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.]
> > > >
> > > > A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll be a
> > > > JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking forward
> > > > to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a position
> > to
> > > > offer
> > > > for awhile.
> > > >
> > > > Ichiro
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen <
> > > Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable
> alternative,
> > > and
> > > > > Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with
> Mootools.
> > > > Since
> > > > > then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use
> > > > > anything else (despite several people promising that they'd
> > contribute
> > > a
> > > > > new default template ;-).
> > > > >
> > > > > (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work
> we're
> > > > often
> > > > > interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask
> them
> > > to
> > > > > make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused
> > and
> > > > > teary-eyed.)
> > > > >
> > > > > /Janne
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <
> > ichiro.furusato@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of
> > > Mootools
> > > > > is,
> > > > > > i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all
> of
> > > our
> > > > > own
> > > > > > projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery,
> and
> > > in a
> > > > > > plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are
> conflicts
> > > > with
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not
> > > pretty).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more
> > > > > widespread
> > > > > > than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects
> > such
> > > as
> > > > > > jQuery
> > > > > > UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over
> Mootools.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the
> changes)
> > > the
> > > > > > JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because
> of
> > > one
> > > > of
> > > > > > the editors, or some other reason?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for any info.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ichiro
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Terry Steichen <te...@net-frame.com>.
Dirk,
Thanks for the pointer, and you're right, the author of that page
convincingly shows that motools.js is pretty powerful.
However, that comparison is 5 years old (and JQuery has grown in
functionality and market share enormously in that period). The author
states that even in 2009, the JQuery community is /far/ (his emphasis)
larger and more active in promoting the library.
I was struck by the author's comment that JQuery is a toolkit (basically
an add-on) and easier to learn, while MoTools is designed as a framework
for intermediate to advanced JavaScript developers.
I trust your technical skills so I assume that motools is quite capable
and even superior in some respects.
However, personally, the easier-to learn and use (and optional
employment as a toolkit) are key points for me, as is having greater
support and market presence. And again, for me at least, that fits
better with the whole idea of getting more people to use JSPWiki.
Terry
On 01/09/2014 05:05 PM, Dirk Frederickx wrote:
> @Terry,
> All the JQ features you mention (documentation, cross browser
> capabilities, ajax and json support) are also available for mootools.
>
> For those of you who are interested to read an excellent comparison article
> on this : http://www.jqueryvsmootools.com
>
>
> dirk
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Terry Steichen <te...@net-frame.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ichiro,
>>
>> As a long-time JSPWiki user (lately mostly lurking on these lists,
>> though), I strongly endorse your idea of migrating to a JQuery interface.
>>
>> I, in fact, have more or less done that - not in a generalized way, but
>> in a way that's specific to my own needs.
>>
>> I did this for a number of reasons (which follow but not in any order of
>> importance):
>>
>> One is that JQ's documentation is excellent and examples abound.
>>
>> Another is JQ's excellent user interface, with excellent cross-browser
>> capabilities - modern and highly functional.
>>
>> Another is JQ's ajax capabilities. As a result of this, I've shifted a
>> lot of my JSPWiki work to a backend-server type role.
>>
>> Another is JQ's extensive JSON capabilities, which has allowed me to
>> move more to a client-server mode.
>>
>> And, of course, all of this allows a LOT of the processing to be done on
>> the client, which allows my server-based JSPWiki code to scale easily
>> without any new coding.
>>
>> Finally, as you and others have mentioned, JQ is very popular so not
>> only will we individually gain valuable skills, but it's likely that
>> others who already have such skills will be inclined to contribute JQ
>> code that will integrate easily with JSPWiki.
>>
>> Dirk Fredrickx has done an outstanding job, and has always been
>> supportive when I've run up against inevitable glitches. But I confess,
>> I've never really understood the logic behind his Javascript magic.
>> (Heck, I didn't even know about motools.js before this discussion.) I
>> think with JQ Dirk could have a lot more backup from others as well.
>>
>> Just my $0.02.
>>
>> Terry
>>
>>
>> On 01/06/2014 03:45 PM, Ichiro Furusato wrote:
>>> Hi Dirk,
>>>
>>> Thanks for all of the information on Mootools' history and plans for
>>> the future. I think the question of Mootools vs. jQuery can be answered
>>> fairly easily, based on one question: how important is it for developers
>>> and users of JSPWiki to be able to modify and augment the JavaScript
>>> used on their wikis (or on the Apache project itself)?
>>>
>>> If the majority of the JS is to be done by developers on the project such
>>> as you, and there's little expectation of anyone else doing JS work, then
>>> sticking with Mootools and/or CSS3 sounds fine.
>>>
>>> I would (and suppose am) advocate for jQuery simply because, as noted
>>> by Janne and myself, jQuery has become so widespread that we can
>>> expect that there is a significantly larger pool of people who know it
>> and
>>> know how it works, and that understanding lends itself to more people
>>> being able to both debug as well as add features to both the Apache
>>> project and their own wikis. By comparison, I don't see much in the way
>>> for Mootools. Google has almost 38 million hits for jQuery, 946,000 for
>>> Mootools. Likewise, I'd prefer we not use CCS3 simply because it's less
>>> supported than jQuery (i.e., one can rely on jQuery) and again, much
>>> better understood than CSS3's more advanced features.
>>>
>>> I'm myself learning jQuery and as I noted, will in a few months (like it
>> or
>>> not) have become a jQuery expert (I'll be working on a large fat client
>>> project that uses jQuery). I'd be very wary of trying to modify the
>>> existing Mootool-based code simply because I'm unfamiliar with it, and
>>> I won't have time to learn Yet Another Framework anytime soon. So I
>>> might in some sense be a typical JSPWiki "user" in this regard. Also,
>>> using jQuery opens up possibilities for using other libraries such as
>> D3.js
>>> (something Neocortext is doing).
>>>
>>> I can understand your advocacy and investment in Mootools, but hope
>>> you might consider the benefits to the JSPWiki project of moving
>>> towards jQuery -- it would bring a lot more people to a place where
>>> they could actively participate in the JavaScript-based aspects of the
>>> project.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading,
>>>
>>> Ichiro
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Dirk Frederickx
>>> <di...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As Janne pointed out, mootools was chosen as it was the more
>> performant,
>>>> light-weight and feature-rich js framework at the time we started with
>>>> javascript on JSPWiki.
>>>>
>>>> Today, mootools and jquery are feature-wise comparable, but jquery
>>>> definitely has won the popularity contest. I still prefer the mootools
>>>> api, because it also plays nice as an object oriented extension of the
>>>> javascript encouraging better design, ...
>>>> but of-course I may be biased ;-)
>>>>
>>>> In the past, there was relatively little JSPWiki community activity on
>> the
>>>> front of the template javascript. The prime focus of the JSPWiki
>> developers
>>>> community was and still is on the java/jsp part.
>>>> Therefore, there has never been a need (nor much discussion) to switch
>> to a
>>>> more popular js framework library.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * * *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Currently, I have been preparing for a major update of the template,
>>>> including a full rewrite of the css and javascript which is still
>> based on
>>>> mootools. This work started already on v3.0.0, but got pushed back in
>> time
>>>> a bit ..
>>>> => Once 2.10.0 is out of the door, I plan to start checking in the new
>>>> template.
>>>>
>>>> - the new template will be based on html5 and css3;
>>>>
>>>> - the source files of the javascript and css will be modularised; and
>> the
>>>> css will be build in LESS. WRO4J was added already to the maven scripts
>> to
>>>> build/compose/compress the modularised css and javascripts sources.
>>>> In general, this will simplify the maintenance of the css and js
>> sources.
>>>> - posteditor.js will (finally) be deprecated; and replaced by a new
>> editor;
>>>> possibly bringing a native wysiwyg editor to JSPWiki.
>>>>
>>>> - the new css stylesheet will be build on top of BOOTSTRAP, the
>>>> css-framework of Twitter, to encourage skin and stylesheet writers.
>> This
>>>> will bring better support for other display types (tablets,
>> smartphones...)
>>>> ; and much more ...
>>>>
>>>> - animations will gradually shift to css-based animations.
>>>>
>>>> - a number of long-standing jira issues on the template will be
>> addressed
>>>>
>>>> * * *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the long-run, switching over to jQuery could be considered, if the
>>>> community around JSPWiki would see the benefit from that.
>>>> The api's of mootools and query are different but at the same time very
>>>> similar -- so switching should not be overly complicated.
>>>>
>>>> As browsers are becoming more 'compatible', and with the rise of html5
>> and
>>>> css3; there is less and less need for the "fat" javascript frameworks
>> of
>>>> the past. (eg animations can now be done in css; so much of the js
>>>> library code can be removed)
>>>>
>>>> So, rather than moving to jQuery, we may also consider to move towards
>> one
>>>> of the upcoming js-micro-frameworks (such as underscore, backbone,
>>>> angularjs, prime...) with much less code-weight.
>>>>
>>>> IMO adopting a strong and popular CSS framework, may be for JSPWiki
>>>> Community more important; as it may stimulate a stylesheet/skin
>> community,
>>>> and be key to attract more JSPWiki users / developers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> groet,
>>>>
>>>> dirk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> jspwiki-commonstyles.js uses mootools, at least for some of the
>> effects;
>>>>> posteditor (non minified source:
>>>>> http://icebeat.bitacoras.com/public/mootools/posteditor/) is also
>> based
>>>> on
>>>>> mootools
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> br,
>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>
>>>>> p.s.: Ichiro, hope you'll evade the asylum ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ichiro Furusato
>>>>> <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Janne,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I hardly
>>>> call
>>>>>> myself
>>>>>> a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do JavaScript,
>>>> so
>>>>>> guilty as charged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not
>>>>>> that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile
>>>> stuff
>>>>>> is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that
>> uses
>>>>>> the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have
>>>> clients
>>>>>> with IE8...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript files:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js
>>>>>> - src/main/scripts/posteditor.js
>>>>>> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K)
>>>>>> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K)
>>>>>> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K)
>>>>>> - src/main/scripts/prettify.js
>>>>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js
>>>>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla
>>>> 1024x768/skin.js
>>>>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js
>>>>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js
>>>>>> - src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js
>>>>>> + src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files it
>>>>> looks
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only
>>>> seems
>>>>> to
>>>>>> use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though
>>>>> jspwiki-edit.js
>>>>>> and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would
>> seem
>>>>>> that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll be a
>>>>>> JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking forward
>>>>>> to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a position
>>>> to
>>>>>> offer
>>>>>> for awhile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ichiro
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen <
>>>>> Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable alternative,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with Mootools.
>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>> then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use
>>>>>>> anything else (despite several people promising that they'd
>>>> contribute
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> new default template ;-).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work we're
>>>>>> often
>>>>>>> interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask them
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused
>>>> and
>>>>>>> teary-eyed.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <
>>>> ichiro.furusato@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of
>>>>> Mootools
>>>>>>> is,
>>>>>>>> i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of
>>>>> our
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and
>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>> plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not
>>>>> pretty).
>>>>>>>> I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more
>>>>>>> widespread
>>>>>>>> than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects
>>>> such
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> jQuery
>>>>>>>> UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes)
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of
>>>>> one
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the editors, or some other reason?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for any info.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ichiro
>>
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Dirk Frederickx <di...@gmail.com>.
@Terry,
All the JQ features you mention (documentation, cross browser
capabilities, ajax and json support) are also available for mootools.
For those of you who are interested to read an excellent comparison article
on this : http://www.jqueryvsmootools.com
dirk
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Terry Steichen <te...@net-frame.com> wrote:
> Hi Ichiro,
>
> As a long-time JSPWiki user (lately mostly lurking on these lists,
> though), I strongly endorse your idea of migrating to a JQuery interface.
>
> I, in fact, have more or less done that - not in a generalized way, but
> in a way that's specific to my own needs.
>
> I did this for a number of reasons (which follow but not in any order of
> importance):
>
> One is that JQ's documentation is excellent and examples abound.
>
> Another is JQ's excellent user interface, with excellent cross-browser
> capabilities - modern and highly functional.
>
> Another is JQ's ajax capabilities. As a result of this, I've shifted a
> lot of my JSPWiki work to a backend-server type role.
>
> Another is JQ's extensive JSON capabilities, which has allowed me to
> move more to a client-server mode.
>
> And, of course, all of this allows a LOT of the processing to be done on
> the client, which allows my server-based JSPWiki code to scale easily
> without any new coding.
>
> Finally, as you and others have mentioned, JQ is very popular so not
> only will we individually gain valuable skills, but it's likely that
> others who already have such skills will be inclined to contribute JQ
> code that will integrate easily with JSPWiki.
>
> Dirk Fredrickx has done an outstanding job, and has always been
> supportive when I've run up against inevitable glitches. But I confess,
> I've never really understood the logic behind his Javascript magic.
> (Heck, I didn't even know about motools.js before this discussion.) I
> think with JQ Dirk could have a lot more backup from others as well.
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> Terry
>
>
> On 01/06/2014 03:45 PM, Ichiro Furusato wrote:
> > Hi Dirk,
> >
> > Thanks for all of the information on Mootools' history and plans for
> > the future. I think the question of Mootools vs. jQuery can be answered
> > fairly easily, based on one question: how important is it for developers
> > and users of JSPWiki to be able to modify and augment the JavaScript
> > used on their wikis (or on the Apache project itself)?
> >
> > If the majority of the JS is to be done by developers on the project such
> > as you, and there's little expectation of anyone else doing JS work, then
> > sticking with Mootools and/or CSS3 sounds fine.
> >
> > I would (and suppose am) advocate for jQuery simply because, as noted
> > by Janne and myself, jQuery has become so widespread that we can
> > expect that there is a significantly larger pool of people who know it
> and
> > know how it works, and that understanding lends itself to more people
> > being able to both debug as well as add features to both the Apache
> > project and their own wikis. By comparison, I don't see much in the way
> > for Mootools. Google has almost 38 million hits for jQuery, 946,000 for
> > Mootools. Likewise, I'd prefer we not use CCS3 simply because it's less
> > supported than jQuery (i.e., one can rely on jQuery) and again, much
> > better understood than CSS3's more advanced features.
> >
> > I'm myself learning jQuery and as I noted, will in a few months (like it
> or
> > not) have become a jQuery expert (I'll be working on a large fat client
> > project that uses jQuery). I'd be very wary of trying to modify the
> > existing Mootool-based code simply because I'm unfamiliar with it, and
> > I won't have time to learn Yet Another Framework anytime soon. So I
> > might in some sense be a typical JSPWiki "user" in this regard. Also,
> > using jQuery opens up possibilities for using other libraries such as
> D3.js
> > (something Neocortext is doing).
> >
> > I can understand your advocacy and investment in Mootools, but hope
> > you might consider the benefits to the JSPWiki project of moving
> > towards jQuery -- it would bring a lot more people to a place where
> > they could actively participate in the JavaScript-based aspects of the
> > project.
> >
> > Thanks for reading,
> >
> > Ichiro
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Dirk Frederickx
> > <di...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> As Janne pointed out, mootools was chosen as it was the more
> performant,
> >> light-weight and feature-rich js framework at the time we started with
> >> javascript on JSPWiki.
> >>
> >> Today, mootools and jquery are feature-wise comparable, but jquery
> >> definitely has won the popularity contest. I still prefer the mootools
> >> api, because it also plays nice as an object oriented extension of the
> >> javascript encouraging better design, ...
> >> but of-course I may be biased ;-)
> >>
> >> In the past, there was relatively little JSPWiki community activity on
> the
> >> front of the template javascript. The prime focus of the JSPWiki
> developers
> >> community was and still is on the java/jsp part.
> >> Therefore, there has never been a need (nor much discussion) to switch
> to a
> >> more popular js framework library.
> >>
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >>
> >> Currently, I have been preparing for a major update of the template,
> >> including a full rewrite of the css and javascript which is still
> based on
> >> mootools. This work started already on v3.0.0, but got pushed back in
> time
> >> a bit ..
> >> => Once 2.10.0 is out of the door, I plan to start checking in the new
> >> template.
> >>
> >> - the new template will be based on html5 and css3;
> >>
> >> - the source files of the javascript and css will be modularised; and
> the
> >> css will be build in LESS. WRO4J was added already to the maven scripts
> to
> >> build/compose/compress the modularised css and javascripts sources.
> >> In general, this will simplify the maintenance of the css and js
> sources.
> >>
> >> - posteditor.js will (finally) be deprecated; and replaced by a new
> editor;
> >> possibly bringing a native wysiwyg editor to JSPWiki.
> >>
> >> - the new css stylesheet will be build on top of BOOTSTRAP, the
> >> css-framework of Twitter, to encourage skin and stylesheet writers.
> This
> >> will bring better support for other display types (tablets,
> smartphones...)
> >> ; and much more ...
> >>
> >> - animations will gradually shift to css-based animations.
> >>
> >> - a number of long-standing jira issues on the template will be
> addressed
> >>
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >>
> >> On the long-run, switching over to jQuery could be considered, if the
> >> community around JSPWiki would see the benefit from that.
> >> The api's of mootools and query are different but at the same time very
> >> similar -- so switching should not be overly complicated.
> >>
> >> As browsers are becoming more 'compatible', and with the rise of html5
> and
> >> css3; there is less and less need for the "fat" javascript frameworks
> of
> >> the past. (eg animations can now be done in css; so much of the js
> >> library code can be removed)
> >>
> >> So, rather than moving to jQuery, we may also consider to move towards
> one
> >> of the upcoming js-micro-frameworks (such as underscore, backbone,
> >> angularjs, prime...) with much less code-weight.
> >>
> >> IMO adopting a strong and popular CSS framework, may be for JSPWiki
> >> Community more important; as it may stimulate a stylesheet/skin
> community,
> >> and be key to attract more JSPWiki users / developers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> groet,
> >>
> >> dirk
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> >> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> jspwiki-commonstyles.js uses mootools, at least for some of the
> effects;
> >>> posteditor (non minified source:
> >>> http://icebeat.bitacoras.com/public/mootools/posteditor/) is also
> based
> >> on
> >>> mootools
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> br,
> >>> juan pablo
> >>>
> >>> p.s.: Ichiro, hope you'll evade the asylum ;-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ichiro Furusato
> >>> <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Janne,
> >>>>
> >>>> I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I hardly
> >> call
> >>>> myself
> >>>> a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do JavaScript,
> >> so
> >>>> guilty as charged.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not
> >>>> that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile
> >> stuff
> >>>> is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that
> uses
> >>>> the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have
> >> clients
> >>>> with IE8...
> >>>>
> >>>> In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript files:
> >>>>
> >>>> - src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js
> >>>> - src/main/scripts/posteditor.js
> >>>> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K)
> >>>> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K)
> >>>> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K)
> >>>> - src/main/scripts/prettify.js
> >>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js
> >>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla
> >> 1024x768/skin.js
> >>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js
> >>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js
> >>>> - src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js
> >>>> + src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js
> >>>>
> >>>> Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files it
> >>> looks
> >>>> like
> >>>> only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only
> >> seems
> >>> to
> >>>> use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though
> >>> jspwiki-edit.js
> >>>> and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would
> seem
> >>>> that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit.
> >>>>
> >>>> [If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.]
> >>>>
> >>>> A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll be a
> >>>> JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking forward
> >>>> to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a position
> >> to
> >>>> offer
> >>>> for awhile.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ichiro
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen <
> >>> Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable alternative,
> >>> and
> >>>>> Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with Mootools.
> >>>> Since
> >>>>> then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use
> >>>>> anything else (despite several people promising that they'd
> >> contribute
> >>> a
> >>>>> new default template ;-).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work we're
> >>>> often
> >>>>> interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask them
> >>> to
> >>>>> make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused
> >> and
> >>>>> teary-eyed.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Janne
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <
> >> ichiro.furusato@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of
> >>> Mootools
> >>>>> is,
> >>>>>> i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of
> >>> our
> >>>>> own
> >>>>>> projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and
> >>> in a
> >>>>>> plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts
> >>>> with
> >>>>>> using
> >>>>>> both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not
> >>> pretty).
> >>>>>> I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more
> >>>>> widespread
> >>>>>> than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects
> >> such
> >>> as
> >>>>>> jQuery
> >>>>>> UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes)
> >>> the
> >>>>>> JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of
> >>> one
> >>>> of
> >>>>>> the editors, or some other reason?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for any info.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ichiro
> >>>>>
>
>
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Terry Steichen <te...@net-frame.com>.
Hi Ichiro,
As a long-time JSPWiki user (lately mostly lurking on these lists,
though), I strongly endorse your idea of migrating to a JQuery interface.
I, in fact, have more or less done that - not in a generalized way, but
in a way that's specific to my own needs.
I did this for a number of reasons (which follow but not in any order of
importance):
One is that JQ's documentation is excellent and examples abound.
Another is JQ's excellent user interface, with excellent cross-browser
capabilities - modern and highly functional.
Another is JQ's ajax capabilities. As a result of this, I've shifted a
lot of my JSPWiki work to a backend-server type role.
Another is JQ's extensive JSON capabilities, which has allowed me to
move more to a client-server mode.
And, of course, all of this allows a LOT of the processing to be done on
the client, which allows my server-based JSPWiki code to scale easily
without any new coding.
Finally, as you and others have mentioned, JQ is very popular so not
only will we individually gain valuable skills, but it's likely that
others who already have such skills will be inclined to contribute JQ
code that will integrate easily with JSPWiki.
Dirk Fredrickx has done an outstanding job, and has always been
supportive when I've run up against inevitable glitches. But I confess,
I've never really understood the logic behind his Javascript magic.
(Heck, I didn't even know about motools.js before this discussion.) I
think with JQ Dirk could have a lot more backup from others as well.
Just my $0.02.
Terry
On 01/06/2014 03:45 PM, Ichiro Furusato wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
>
> Thanks for all of the information on Mootools' history and plans for
> the future. I think the question of Mootools vs. jQuery can be answered
> fairly easily, based on one question: how important is it for developers
> and users of JSPWiki to be able to modify and augment the JavaScript
> used on their wikis (or on the Apache project itself)?
>
> If the majority of the JS is to be done by developers on the project such
> as you, and there's little expectation of anyone else doing JS work, then
> sticking with Mootools and/or CSS3 sounds fine.
>
> I would (and suppose am) advocate for jQuery simply because, as noted
> by Janne and myself, jQuery has become so widespread that we can
> expect that there is a significantly larger pool of people who know it and
> know how it works, and that understanding lends itself to more people
> being able to both debug as well as add features to both the Apache
> project and their own wikis. By comparison, I don't see much in the way
> for Mootools. Google has almost 38 million hits for jQuery, 946,000 for
> Mootools. Likewise, I'd prefer we not use CCS3 simply because it's less
> supported than jQuery (i.e., one can rely on jQuery) and again, much
> better understood than CSS3's more advanced features.
>
> I'm myself learning jQuery and as I noted, will in a few months (like it or
> not) have become a jQuery expert (I'll be working on a large fat client
> project that uses jQuery). I'd be very wary of trying to modify the
> existing Mootool-based code simply because I'm unfamiliar with it, and
> I won't have time to learn Yet Another Framework anytime soon. So I
> might in some sense be a typical JSPWiki "user" in this regard. Also,
> using jQuery opens up possibilities for using other libraries such as D3.js
> (something Neocortext is doing).
>
> I can understand your advocacy and investment in Mootools, but hope
> you might consider the benefits to the JSPWiki project of moving
> towards jQuery -- it would bring a lot more people to a place where
> they could actively participate in the JavaScript-based aspects of the
> project.
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Ichiro
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Dirk Frederickx
> <di...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> As Janne pointed out, mootools was chosen as it was the more performant,
>> light-weight and feature-rich js framework at the time we started with
>> javascript on JSPWiki.
>>
>> Today, mootools and jquery are feature-wise comparable, but jquery
>> definitely has won the popularity contest. I still prefer the mootools
>> api, because it also plays nice as an object oriented extension of the
>> javascript encouraging better design, ...
>> but of-course I may be biased ;-)
>>
>> In the past, there was relatively little JSPWiki community activity on the
>> front of the template javascript. The prime focus of the JSPWiki developers
>> community was and still is on the java/jsp part.
>> Therefore, there has never been a need (nor much discussion) to switch to a
>> more popular js framework library.
>>
>>
>> * * *
>>
>>
>> Currently, I have been preparing for a major update of the template,
>> including a full rewrite of the css and javascript which is still based on
>> mootools. This work started already on v3.0.0, but got pushed back in time
>> a bit ..
>> => Once 2.10.0 is out of the door, I plan to start checking in the new
>> template.
>>
>> - the new template will be based on html5 and css3;
>>
>> - the source files of the javascript and css will be modularised; and the
>> css will be build in LESS. WRO4J was added already to the maven scripts to
>> build/compose/compress the modularised css and javascripts sources.
>> In general, this will simplify the maintenance of the css and js sources.
>>
>> - posteditor.js will (finally) be deprecated; and replaced by a new editor;
>> possibly bringing a native wysiwyg editor to JSPWiki.
>>
>> - the new css stylesheet will be build on top of BOOTSTRAP, the
>> css-framework of Twitter, to encourage skin and stylesheet writers. This
>> will bring better support for other display types (tablets, smartphones...)
>> ; and much more ...
>>
>> - animations will gradually shift to css-based animations.
>>
>> - a number of long-standing jira issues on the template will be addressed
>>
>>
>> * * *
>>
>>
>> On the long-run, switching over to jQuery could be considered, if the
>> community around JSPWiki would see the benefit from that.
>> The api's of mootools and query are different but at the same time very
>> similar -- so switching should not be overly complicated.
>>
>> As browsers are becoming more 'compatible', and with the rise of html5 and
>> css3; there is less and less need for the "fat" javascript frameworks of
>> the past. (eg animations can now be done in css; so much of the js
>> library code can be removed)
>>
>> So, rather than moving to jQuery, we may also consider to move towards one
>> of the upcoming js-micro-frameworks (such as underscore, backbone,
>> angularjs, prime...) with much less code-weight.
>>
>> IMO adopting a strong and popular CSS framework, may be for JSPWiki
>> Community more important; as it may stimulate a stylesheet/skin community,
>> and be key to attract more JSPWiki users / developers.
>>
>>
>>
>> groet,
>>
>> dirk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> jspwiki-commonstyles.js uses mootools, at least for some of the effects;
>>> posteditor (non minified source:
>>> http://icebeat.bitacoras.com/public/mootools/posteditor/) is also based
>> on
>>> mootools
>>>
>>>
>>> br,
>>> juan pablo
>>>
>>> p.s.: Ichiro, hope you'll evade the asylum ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ichiro Furusato
>>> <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Janne,
>>>>
>>>> I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I hardly
>> call
>>>> myself
>>>> a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do JavaScript,
>> so
>>>> guilty as charged.
>>>>
>>>> But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not
>>>> that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile
>> stuff
>>>> is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that uses
>>>> the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have
>> clients
>>>> with IE8...
>>>>
>>>> In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript files:
>>>>
>>>> - src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js
>>>> - src/main/scripts/posteditor.js
>>>> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K)
>>>> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K)
>>>> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K)
>>>> - src/main/scripts/prettify.js
>>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js
>>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla
>> 1024x768/skin.js
>>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js
>>>> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js
>>>> - src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js
>>>> + src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js
>>>>
>>>> Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files it
>>> looks
>>>> like
>>>> only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only
>> seems
>>> to
>>>> use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though
>>> jspwiki-edit.js
>>>> and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would seem
>>>> that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit.
>>>>
>>>> [If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.]
>>>>
>>>> A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll be a
>>>> JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking forward
>>>> to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a position
>> to
>>>> offer
>>>> for awhile.
>>>>
>>>> Ichiro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen <
>>> Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable alternative,
>>> and
>>>>> Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with Mootools.
>>>> Since
>>>>> then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use
>>>>> anything else (despite several people promising that they'd
>> contribute
>>> a
>>>>> new default template ;-).
>>>>>
>>>>> (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work we're
>>>> often
>>>>> interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask them
>>> to
>>>>> make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused
>> and
>>>>> teary-eyed.)
>>>>>
>>>>> /Janne
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <
>> ichiro.furusato@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of
>>> Mootools
>>>>> is,
>>>>>> i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of
>>> our
>>>>> own
>>>>>> projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and
>>> in a
>>>>>> plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts
>>>> with
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not
>>> pretty).
>>>>>> I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more
>>>>> widespread
>>>>>> than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects
>> such
>>> as
>>>>>> jQuery
>>>>>> UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes)
>>> the
>>>>>> JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of
>>> one
>>>> of
>>>>>> the editors, or some other reason?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for any info.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ichiro
>>>>>
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dirk,
Thanks for all of the information on Mootools' history and plans for
the future. I think the question of Mootools vs. jQuery can be answered
fairly easily, based on one question: how important is it for developers
and users of JSPWiki to be able to modify and augment the JavaScript
used on their wikis (or on the Apache project itself)?
If the majority of the JS is to be done by developers on the project such
as you, and there's little expectation of anyone else doing JS work, then
sticking with Mootools and/or CSS3 sounds fine.
I would (and suppose am) advocate for jQuery simply because, as noted
by Janne and myself, jQuery has become so widespread that we can
expect that there is a significantly larger pool of people who know it and
know how it works, and that understanding lends itself to more people
being able to both debug as well as add features to both the Apache
project and their own wikis. By comparison, I don't see much in the way
for Mootools. Google has almost 38 million hits for jQuery, 946,000 for
Mootools. Likewise, I'd prefer we not use CCS3 simply because it's less
supported than jQuery (i.e., one can rely on jQuery) and again, much
better understood than CSS3's more advanced features.
I'm myself learning jQuery and as I noted, will in a few months (like it or
not) have become a jQuery expert (I'll be working on a large fat client
project that uses jQuery). I'd be very wary of trying to modify the
existing Mootool-based code simply because I'm unfamiliar with it, and
I won't have time to learn Yet Another Framework anytime soon. So I
might in some sense be a typical JSPWiki "user" in this regard. Also,
using jQuery opens up possibilities for using other libraries such as D3.js
(something Neocortext is doing).
I can understand your advocacy and investment in Mootools, but hope
you might consider the benefits to the JSPWiki project of moving
towards jQuery -- it would bring a lot more people to a place where
they could actively participate in the JavaScript-based aspects of the
project.
Thanks for reading,
Ichiro
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Dirk Frederickx
<di...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> As Janne pointed out, mootools was chosen as it was the more performant,
> light-weight and feature-rich js framework at the time we started with
> javascript on JSPWiki.
>
> Today, mootools and jquery are feature-wise comparable, but jquery
> definitely has won the popularity contest. I still prefer the mootools
> api, because it also plays nice as an object oriented extension of the
> javascript encouraging better design, ...
> but of-course I may be biased ;-)
>
> In the past, there was relatively little JSPWiki community activity on the
> front of the template javascript. The prime focus of the JSPWiki developers
> community was and still is on the java/jsp part.
> Therefore, there has never been a need (nor much discussion) to switch to a
> more popular js framework library.
>
>
> * * *
>
>
> Currently, I have been preparing for a major update of the template,
> including a full rewrite of the css and javascript which is still based on
> mootools. This work started already on v3.0.0, but got pushed back in time
> a bit ..
> => Once 2.10.0 is out of the door, I plan to start checking in the new
> template.
>
> - the new template will be based on html5 and css3;
>
> - the source files of the javascript and css will be modularised; and the
> css will be build in LESS. WRO4J was added already to the maven scripts to
> build/compose/compress the modularised css and javascripts sources.
> In general, this will simplify the maintenance of the css and js sources.
>
> - posteditor.js will (finally) be deprecated; and replaced by a new editor;
> possibly bringing a native wysiwyg editor to JSPWiki.
>
> - the new css stylesheet will be build on top of BOOTSTRAP, the
> css-framework of Twitter, to encourage skin and stylesheet writers. This
> will bring better support for other display types (tablets, smartphones...)
> ; and much more ...
>
> - animations will gradually shift to css-based animations.
>
> - a number of long-standing jira issues on the template will be addressed
>
>
> * * *
>
>
> On the long-run, switching over to jQuery could be considered, if the
> community around JSPWiki would see the benefit from that.
> The api's of mootools and query are different but at the same time very
> similar -- so switching should not be overly complicated.
>
> As browsers are becoming more 'compatible', and with the rise of html5 and
> css3; there is less and less need for the "fat" javascript frameworks of
> the past. (eg animations can now be done in css; so much of the js
> library code can be removed)
>
> So, rather than moving to jQuery, we may also consider to move towards one
> of the upcoming js-micro-frameworks (such as underscore, backbone,
> angularjs, prime...) with much less code-weight.
>
> IMO adopting a strong and popular CSS framework, may be for JSPWiki
> Community more important; as it may stimulate a stylesheet/skin community,
> and be key to attract more JSPWiki users / developers.
>
>
>
> groet,
>
> dirk
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > jspwiki-commonstyles.js uses mootools, at least for some of the effects;
> > posteditor (non minified source:
> > http://icebeat.bitacoras.com/public/mootools/posteditor/) is also based
> on
> > mootools
> >
> >
> > br,
> > juan pablo
> >
> > p.s.: Ichiro, hope you'll evade the asylum ;-)
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ichiro Furusato
> > <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Janne,
> > >
> > > I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I hardly
> call
> > > myself
> > > a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do JavaScript,
> so
> > > guilty as charged.
> > >
> > > But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not
> > > that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile
> stuff
> > > is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that uses
> > > the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have
> clients
> > > with IE8...
> > >
> > > In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript files:
> > >
> > > - src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js
> > > - src/main/scripts/posteditor.js
> > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K)
> > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K)
> > > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K)
> > > - src/main/scripts/prettify.js
> > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js
> > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla
> 1024x768/skin.js
> > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js
> > > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js
> > > - src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js
> > > + src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js
> > >
> > > Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files it
> > looks
> > > like
> > > only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only
> seems
> > to
> > > use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though
> > jspwiki-edit.js
> > > and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would seem
> > > that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit.
> > >
> > > [If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.]
> > >
> > > A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll be a
> > > JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking forward
> > > to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a position
> to
> > > offer
> > > for awhile.
> > >
> > > Ichiro
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen <
> > Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable alternative,
> > and
> > > > Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with Mootools.
> > > Since
> > > > then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use
> > > > anything else (despite several people promising that they'd
> contribute
> > a
> > > > new default template ;-).
> > > >
> > > > (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work we're
> > > often
> > > > interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask them
> > to
> > > > make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused
> and
> > > > teary-eyed.)
> > > >
> > > > /Janne
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <
> ichiro.furusato@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of
> > Mootools
> > > > is,
> > > > > i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of
> > our
> > > > own
> > > > > projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and
> > in a
> > > > > plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts
> > > with
> > > > > using
> > > > > both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not
> > pretty).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more
> > > > widespread
> > > > > than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects
> such
> > as
> > > > > jQuery
> > > > > UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes)
> > the
> > > > > JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of
> > one
> > > of
> > > > > the editors, or some other reason?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for any info.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ichiro
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Dirk Frederickx <di...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
As Janne pointed out, mootools was chosen as it was the more performant,
light-weight and feature-rich js framework at the time we started with
javascript on JSPWiki.
Today, mootools and jquery are feature-wise comparable, but jquery
definitely has won the popularity contest. I still prefer the mootools
api, because it also plays nice as an object oriented extension of the
javascript encouraging better design, ...
but of-course I may be biased ;-)
In the past, there was relatively little JSPWiki community activity on the
front of the template javascript. The prime focus of the JSPWiki developers
community was and still is on the java/jsp part.
Therefore, there has never been a need (nor much discussion) to switch to a
more popular js framework library.
* * *
Currently, I have been preparing for a major update of the template,
including a full rewrite of the css and javascript which is still based on
mootools. This work started already on v3.0.0, but got pushed back in time
a bit ..
=> Once 2.10.0 is out of the door, I plan to start checking in the new
template.
- the new template will be based on html5 and css3;
- the source files of the javascript and css will be modularised; and the
css will be build in LESS. WRO4J was added already to the maven scripts to
build/compose/compress the modularised css and javascripts sources.
In general, this will simplify the maintenance of the css and js sources.
- posteditor.js will (finally) be deprecated; and replaced by a new editor;
possibly bringing a native wysiwyg editor to JSPWiki.
- the new css stylesheet will be build on top of BOOTSTRAP, the
css-framework of Twitter, to encourage skin and stylesheet writers. This
will bring better support for other display types (tablets, smartphones...)
; and much more ...
- animations will gradually shift to css-based animations.
- a number of long-standing jira issues on the template will be addressed
* * *
On the long-run, switching over to jQuery could be considered, if the
community around JSPWiki would see the benefit from that.
The api's of mootools and query are different but at the same time very
similar -- so switching should not be overly complicated.
As browsers are becoming more 'compatible', and with the rise of html5 and
css3; there is less and less need for the "fat" javascript frameworks of
the past. (eg animations can now be done in css; so much of the js
library code can be removed)
So, rather than moving to jQuery, we may also consider to move towards one
of the upcoming js-micro-frameworks (such as underscore, backbone,
angularjs, prime...) with much less code-weight.
IMO adopting a strong and popular CSS framework, may be for JSPWiki
Community more important; as it may stimulate a stylesheet/skin community,
and be key to attract more JSPWiki users / developers.
groet,
dirk
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> jspwiki-commonstyles.js uses mootools, at least for some of the effects;
> posteditor (non minified source:
> http://icebeat.bitacoras.com/public/mootools/posteditor/) is also based on
> mootools
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
> p.s.: Ichiro, hope you'll evade the asylum ;-)
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ichiro Furusato
> <ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hi Janne,
> >
> > I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I hardly call
> > myself
> > a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do JavaScript, so
> > guilty as charged.
> >
> > But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not
> > that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile stuff
> > is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that uses
> > the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have clients
> > with IE8...
> >
> > In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript files:
> >
> > - src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js
> > - src/main/scripts/posteditor.js
> > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K)
> > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K)
> > + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K)
> > - src/main/scripts/prettify.js
> > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js
> > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla 1024x768/skin.js
> > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js
> > - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js
> > - src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js
> > + src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js
> >
> > Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files it
> looks
> > like
> > only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only seems
> to
> > use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though
> jspwiki-edit.js
> > and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would seem
> > that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit.
> >
> > [If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.]
> >
> > A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll be a
> > JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking forward
> > to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a position to
> > offer
> > for awhile.
> >
> > Ichiro
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen <
> Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable alternative,
> and
> > > Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with Mootools.
> > Since
> > > then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use
> > > anything else (despite several people promising that they'd contribute
> a
> > > new default template ;-).
> > >
> > > (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work we're
> > often
> > > interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask them
> to
> > > make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused and
> > > teary-eyed.)
> > >
> > > /Janne
> > >
> > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of
> Mootools
> > > is,
> > > > i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of
> our
> > > own
> > > > projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and
> in a
> > > > plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts
> > with
> > > > using
> > > > both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not
> pretty).
> > > >
> > > > I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more
> > > widespread
> > > > than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects such
> as
> > > > jQuery
> > > > UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes)
> the
> > > > JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of
> one
> > of
> > > > the editors, or some other reason?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for any info.
> > > >
> > > > Ichiro
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
jspwiki-commonstyles.js uses mootools, at least for some of the effects;
posteditor (non minified source:
http://icebeat.bitacoras.com/public/mootools/posteditor/) is also based on
mootools
br,
juan pablo
p.s.: Ichiro, hope you'll evade the asylum ;-)
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ichiro Furusato
<ic...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Janne,
>
> I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I hardly call
> myself
> a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do JavaScript, so
> guilty as charged.
>
> But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not
> that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile stuff
> is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that uses
> the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have clients
> with IE8...
>
> In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript files:
>
> - src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js
> - src/main/scripts/posteditor.js
> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K)
> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K)
> + src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K)
> - src/main/scripts/prettify.js
> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js
> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla 1024x768/skin.js
> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js
> - src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js
> - src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js
> + src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js
>
> Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files it looks
> like
> only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only seems to
> use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though jspwiki-edit.js
> and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would seem
> that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit.
>
> [If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.]
>
> A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll be a
> JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking forward
> to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a position to
> offer
> for awhile.
>
> Ichiro
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen <Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable alternative, and
> > Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with Mootools.
> Since
> > then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use
> > anything else (despite several people promising that they'd contribute a
> > new default template ;-).
> >
> > (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work we're
> often
> > interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask them to
> > make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused and
> > teary-eyed.)
> >
> > /Janne
> >
> > On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of Mootools
> > is,
> > > i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of our
> > own
> > > projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and in a
> > > plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts
> with
> > > using
> > > both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not pretty).
> > >
> > > I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more
> > widespread
> > > than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects such as
> > > jQuery
> > > UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools.
> > >
> > > Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes) the
> > > JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of one
> of
> > > the editors, or some other reason?
> > >
> > > Thanks for any info.
> > >
> > > Ichiro
> >
> >
>
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>.
Hi Janne,
I do agree about the "over-popularity" of jQuery, and while I hardly call
myself
a JavaScript expert I probably know as much jQuery as I do JavaScript, so
guilty as charged.
But it does seem the world has almost entirely moved to jQuery. Not
that I see any downside to that really -- the jQuery UI and Mobile stuff
is very good and easy to use. I've been playing with a button that uses
the effects features which work very well. A shame we still have clients
with IE8...
In looking at the JSPWiki source I see the following JavaScript files:
- src/main/scripts/jspwiki-commonstyles.js
- src/main/scripts/posteditor.js
+ src/main/scripts/jspwiki-edit.js (23K)
+ src/main/scripts/jspwiki-prefs.js (4.6K)
+ src/main/scripts/jspwiki-common.js (54K)
- src/main/scripts/prettify.js
- src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/Smart/skin.js
- src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla 1024x768/skin.js
- src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/OrderedList/skin.js
- src/main/webapp/templates/default/skins/PlainVanilla/skin.js
- src/main/webapp/scripts/fckconfig.js
+ src/main/webapp/scripts/mootools.js
Apart from mootools.js itself, on a cursory glance over the files it looks
like
only the ones I've marked "+" use mootools. jspwiki-prefs.js only seems to
use the basic query (unless I'm missing something), though jspwiki-edit.js
and jspwiki-common.js certainly use mootools extensively. It would seem
that jspwiki-common.js is the main culprit.
[If there are others I've missed, anyone please inform the list.]
A few months from now I'll either be in an insane asylum or I'll be a
JavaScript expert (upcoming work I'm not particularly looking forward
to), so maybe I could tackle this, but I'm probably not in a position to
offer
for awhile.
Ichiro
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>wrote:
>
> Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable alternative, and
> Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with Mootools. Since
> then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use
> anything else (despite several people promising that they'd contribute a
> new default template ;-).
>
> (JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work we're often
> interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask them to
> make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused and
> teary-eyed.)
>
> /Janne
>
> On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of Mootools
> is,
> > i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of our
> own
> > projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and in a
> > plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts with
> > using
> > both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not pretty).
> >
> > I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more
> widespread
> > than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects such as
> > jQuery
> > UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools.
> >
> > Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes) the
> > JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of one of
> > the editors, or some other reason?
> >
> > Thanks for any info.
> >
> > Ichiro
>
>
Re: Mootools vs. jQuery
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
Simply put: JQuery did not exist at the time as a viable alternative, and Dirk, who wrote the templates, just was more familiar with Mootools. Since then, nobody has cared enough to change the default template to use anything else (despite several people promising that they'd contribute a new default template ;-).
(JQuery is very popular these days - too popular even; at work we're often interviewing people who claim to know Javascript but when we ask them to make a really simple effect *without* JQuery they get all confused and teary-eyed.)
/Janne
On Jan 6, 2014, at 07:40 , Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering what the history of the project's use of Mootools is,
> i.e., why it's using Mootools rather than jQuery? On almost all of our own
> projects (including some done for clients) we're using jQuery, and in a
> plugin I'm working on right now I realised that there are conflicts with
> using
> both Mootools and jQuery on the same page (resolvable but not pretty).
>
> I'm under the impression that jQuery adoption is enormously more widespread
> than Mootools, and with the availability of jQuery sub-projects such as
> jQuery
> UI it would seem to have some significant advantages over Mootools.
>
> Is there any reason why (apart from the work of making the changes) the
> JSPWiki project couldn't switch over to jQuery? Is this because of one of
> the editors, or some other reason?
>
> Thanks for any info.
>
> Ichiro