See below: > > 1. For very basic wrapped widgets the dojo > implementation is great. > But, as soon as people start working more in depth, > problems arise and > in-depth knowledge of the dojo framework is required. > I believe Pat's > xamples of this was debugging issues. This no longer > allows us to wrap > and isolate the end user. >
Maybe, but we've never shied away from telling people to understand the tools they use before. For example, FreeMarker or Velocity. We make it easier for people to get these set up to use their actions, etc. but we don't fundamentally alter the need for the user to learn them... That said I can edit a template, but I couldn't set them up from scratch with their contexts, etc. Same with Dojo. > 2. I think we are doing a lot of work wrapping the > dojo widgets with tag > object models, etc. when the alternative is easier - > add <saf:property > .. /> tags directly to the dojo markup. I also > believe as more complex > UI's are build, most people will opt. for this route > for more control. > This may be true for some of the simple cases, but take a look at the Tree tag I built. You can specify the starting object and the property that holds the child nodes and it will walk the whole tree for you. This is non-trivial by hand. I know, because I started out to do that, and decided the tag should do it for me. > 3. Using #2 above we are not forcing user to either > use the dojo version > in the SAF release, or to muck about updating the > dojo version > themselves - currently the dojo JS is included in the > core JAR file. > Not being able to easily use the most recent version > (with the most > recent bug fixes) is most likely gong to be > frustrating. I'm not so sure about this. I think people will be glad to have a combination they know works together. It's not always about the newest, shiniest thing, sometimes it's about the path of least resistance, and pre-bundled is pretty low resistance. > > 4. When it comes down to it, SAF is adding no > additional functionality > to the dojo widgets. There was a discussion about > PDF's the other week, > and I think this is similar issue. I disagree... See my comments on point #2 above. We can make the tags automate a lot of what you have to do for the dojo widgets. > > 5. If we add any ajax functionality it should tie > into the framework - > i.e. validation and connecting custom > componts/rendering with actions. > In these cases I think that DWR is a better option > than dojo > > /Ian > I think there's room for both. -- Jason --------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted via Jive Forums http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=34666&messageID=67789#67789 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
