On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Cagatay Civici <cagatay.civ...@gmail.com> wrote: > Afaik gpl3 is compatible with apache v2?
I think that you can't extend it to offer asl based enhancements. -M > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> > wrote: >> >> I think the ExtJS has a GPL-style license, right ? >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Cagatay Civici >> <cagatay.civ...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say flaws are >> > fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :) Dojo is >> > like ejb2 to me. I'd consider ExtJS as well instead of dojo. Maybe it's >> > a >> > better match of widgets compared to jquery ui. >> > >> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Cagatay, >> >> >> >> Can we try to find arguments in favour of possible javascript >> >> libraries? >> >> Why do you prefer jQuery? The tomahawk dependency is on dojo 0.4, >> >> current is >> >> 1.3.1, you just cannot compare them. jQuery plugins aren't part of the >> >> main >> >> jQuery project, so maintenance may be not guaranteed on the long term. >> >> For >> >> example the dojo dataGrid is still in dojox because it has minor >> >> issues, but >> >> it still is superior to all "stable" jQuery table plugins (e.g. >> >> flexgrid) >> >> I've seen. On the other hand the main jQuery project lacks basic >> >> widgets >> >> (combo/select, input, table, ...). Also dojo has a comprehesive >> >> validation >> >> concept over all its widgets which isn't possible with the widespread >> >> jQuery >> >> plugins. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Ganesh >> >> >> >> Cagatay Civici schrieb: >> >>> >> >>> Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency. >> >>> >> >>> For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery plugins >> >>> instead of dojo. >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf >> >>> <mat...@apache.org >> >>> <mailto:mat...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go >> >>> the >> >>> Facelets road, for new things. >> >>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based >> >>> components; old-fashion >> >>> renderers are still, ok... >> >>> >> >>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that >> >>> ? >> >>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a >> >>> wrapper for >> >>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling) >> >>> >> >>> -M >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org >> >>> <mailto:gan...@j4fry.org>> wrote: >> >>> > Hi Matthias, >> >>> > >> >>> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the >> >>> J4Fry >> >>> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF >> >>> template/dojo library, >> >>> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0 >> >>> out of the >> >>> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first >> >>> project based >> >>> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a >> >>> european bank. >> >>> > We've started working on this last autumn after I released this >> >>> artivle in >> >>> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag >> >>> libraries must be >> >>> > template based: >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf. >> >>> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make >> >>> them a >> >>> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject. >> >>> > >> >>> > Here's a link to the documentation: >> >>> http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml >> >>> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is >> >>> currently >> >>> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example). >> >>> > >> >>> > Best regards, >> >>> > Ganesh >> >>> > >> >>> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Hi, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an >> >>> idea... >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create >> >>> (custom) >> >>> >> components, >> >>> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that >> >>> defines >> >>> >> a JSF 2.0 set >> >>> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy* >> >>> >> component (via Facelets). >> >>> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a >> >>> kinda >> >>> >> wrapper for some JS lib, >> >>> >> e.g. jQuery. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> -Matthias >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Matthias Wessendorf >> >>> >> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
