It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast.
Anyway a few links for people interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. Sam On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: > My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more > downsides that it does upsides. > - More code to maintain > - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? > - Another API for users to learn > - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex > object oriented features of the libraries? > > Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library > preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but > if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. > > IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being > too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a > javascript library and stick with it. > > Regards > Scott > > On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the >> choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. >> >> I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall >> that it started out with creating "connector code" in selectall.js. In other >> words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be >> swapped out without too much effort. >> >> That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String >> arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. >> >> While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate >> file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out >> of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't >> match its contents. >> >> -Adrian >> >> On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >>> Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : >>>> Hey guys, >>>> >>>> i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. >>>> And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based >>>> JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to >>>> test >>>> and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new >>>> heavy >>>> Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) >>>> >>>> So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and >>>> Prototype >>>> as depricated >>>> and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in >>>> the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter >>>> than Dojo. >>>> >>>> Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could >>>> spend >>>> my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>> >>> Hi Sascha, >>> >>> I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for >>> it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. >>> Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another >>> every time is not. >>> Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has >>> decided ! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >
