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 <ichiro.furus...@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.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 > > > > >
