On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:32:16 -0200, trsvax <[email protected]> wrote:
Nope, I don't think this is going to happen (creating a complete
JavaScript framework). Otherwise, it wouldn't be an abstraction layer.
The
Java equivalent would be creating interfaces and have a jQuery
implementation of it, also a Prototype one.
I don't think it's going to happen (or should happen) either which is
way I don't see any benefit in trying.
I don' think so, but something like that already happened once, so it can
happen again.
I do think this is a valid point but with Prototype there was still an
abstraction layer. It was not easy to pickup a Prototype component and
just use it. jQuery is different in that respect. It's possible to easily
integrate existing widgets with no Javascript and virtually no Java. In
fact> with some framework support I certain it could be done by just
dropping a
javascript file into the resources.widgets directory.
I think you're confusing Prototype and Scriptaculous here. The abstraction
layer, as far as I can see, wouldn't deal with GUI stuff (that's
Scriptaculous), just DOM handling and events (that's Prototype).
The question is would it be better to have excellent support for the
currently popular framework or mediocre support for none of them. I don't
think this is really a backward compatibility issue because as you say
the abstraction layer will not be complete enough to really shield you
from the underlying Javascript framework anyway.
The abstraction layer, again, is for Tapestry itself, not for us when
we're creating websites with it.
I do think it's true that people will complain no matter what. I know I
will :)
Agreed! :)
I have a large site that is not jQuery and for it backward
compatibility
is very important. What I would like to see is the Javascript part
become a
module and you just pick the one you want and go.
The abstraction layer would be needed for these modules to be written
without rewriting everything in jQuery and in Prototype.
I don't see how a Javascript abstraction layer helps you here because I
think the correct abstraction point is the Java component. Let's say you
want a Calendar component. The jQuery and Prototype calendars are
completely
different but they can appear the same at the Tapestry component level.
What
does a Javascript abstraction layer bring to the table? You will still
need
to create two different components.
Yes, but the resulting code will be shorter.
I'm likely to continue using Tapestry whichever way it goes but I will
say if my existing 5.3 site does not work in 5.4 because of Javascript
abstraction layer changes it's going to be a lot of work for me to get to
5.4.
Again, that's not going to happen.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
