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.jalka...@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.furus...@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 > >
