The tooltips could use another library, and either the calendar could
use a slimmed down version of dojo for that widget or another library.
The problem is currently our xhtml theme included dojo, which I kinda
regret. It does seem like there should be a more clear separation.
Don
Ian Roughley wrote:
Just thought of a possible downside.
Features that users may have expected as simple javascript / non-ajax,
for example tool tip and calendar, are (I believe) now implemented
using the dojo library. So there is not a clean separation between
those tags that have communication and those that don't.
/Ian
Don Brown wrote:
As much as I absolutely hate to say it, I think we need to resolve
this ajax tag issue before 2.0 goes GA. The AJAX support of Struts 2
gets so much attention by the community that to have a brittle,
poorly supported feature that we hope to remove in the next release
will only bring confusion and rejection of Struts 2 as a whole.
If we created a new tag library, our current tags should be able to
be very much simplified as a lot of the attributes would go away.
The new tags would be much clearer and easier to pick up without
having to explain themes and why certain attributes only work in
certain situations.
On the other hand, ripping the ajax tags out would affect backwards
compatibility. Are a lot of users out there using these tags? Could
the migration be simple or would it involve too much effort?
Don
Ian Roughley wrote:
The wrappers around the beans are there to provide accessors to new
attributes needed by the ajax tags. If we were to extract the tags
into a separate taglib or library, I don't think we would need the
wrappers. The additionally required attributes would be contained
on the new classes in the new library. This would also remove the
dependency of s2 on each ajax library we use (i.e. for dojo we need
an additional attribute x & y, for prototype maybe we use y and add
new attributes a & b).
But I like the idea :) It would also help with the more frequent
dojo updates.
/Ian
Ted Husted wrote:
Meanwhile, what about Don's suggestion that we keep the wrappers but
drop the theme and put the tags into their own library or plugin? We'd
need to do something like that first, regardless of where the code
ultimately lives.
-Ted.
On 12/14/06, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Probably a better integration in some places...but it would
definitely
be worth considering not to duplicate what others are doing.
musachy
Don Brown wrote:
> Well, if there is an external project that already does
everything we
> want, then why don't we just use them? I'm all for minimizing
> duplication. What value does having our own ajax tag library
provide?
>
> Don
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
