Awesome!
Thank you, Andrew!

I've added few minor comments.
It looks very promising!

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 7:59 AM Andrew Kondratev <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Please see this commit in my branch
>
> https://github.com/andruhon/wicket/commit/f507ae60f183882336b6ca145ab945a6ba9bc94a
>
> пт, 3 мая 2019 г. в 16:46, Andrew Kondratev <[email protected]>:
>
> > Hi Everyone!
> >
> > Today I tried to quickly migrate a wicket-ajax-jquery into a bunch of TS
> > files and made it build into something similar to what was originally
> > there. Just made it compile and checked that  Wicket.Class.create() works
> > with this example:
> >
> > ```
> >         Wicket.SomethingElse = Wicket.Class.create();
> >         Wicket.SomethingElse.prototype = {
> >             initialize: function() {
> >                 this.message = "HiThere!";
> >             },
> >             hi: function() {
> >                 console.log(this.message);
> >             }
> >         };
> >         var something = new Wicket.SomethingElse();
> >         something.hi();
> > ```
> >
> > The implementation is still missing some bits and pieces and for sure not
> > optimal, just a proof of concept. Just wanted all you to have a look and
> > think if it worth further time investment.
> >
> > чт, 2 мая 2019 г. в 20:58, Andrew Kondratev <[email protected]>:
> >
> >> Right, I'll try to toss these objects into separate TS files WITHOUT
> >> changing anything in implementation to finish with with full
> compatibility
> >> with all existing code and tests and will see how it looks like. If
> result
> >> will look good we can discuss how the TS transpilation can be properly
> >> squeezed into the wicket build.
> >>
> >> P.S. I don't think that transpilation of this amount of code will take
> >> longer than 1 or 2 seconds.
> >>
> >> чт, 2 мая 2019 г. в 20:51, Martin Terra <
> [email protected]
> >> >:
> >>
> >>> to 2. toukok. 2019 klo 11.42 Martin Grigorov ([email protected])
> >>> kirjoitti:
> >>>
> >>> > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:17 AM Andrew Kondratev <
> [email protected]
> >>> >
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > The idea for using TypeScript came into my mind when I was
> >>> implementing
> >>> > > custom AjaxBehaviour, because I had a few issues with it:
> >>> > > 1. The 3000 lines file is not quite a readable thing.
> >>> > > 2. There's not a lot of intelli sense help when someone trying to
> >>> > implement
> >>> > > something. Say it's hard to remember what's the object passed to
> >>> > > Wicket.Ajax.post, and what's dh in this object, is dh an object or
> a
> >>> > > function or array of functions, what is ep and so on...
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Potentially second can be improved without changing the code
> itself,
> >>> by
> >>> > > implementing d.ts definitions for the file. The first problem can
> >>> also be
> >>> > > fixed by placing objects such as Wicket.Log, Wicket.Channel,
> >>> Wicket.Ajax
> >>> > > and so on into separate files and then concatenate them somehow
> into
> >>> > single
> >>> > > file.
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > I start to like the idea!
> >>> > Let's see what others think.
> >>> > To convince us more you can create a branch and setup the TS build in
> >>> > wicket-core
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > чт, 2 мая 2019 г. в 18:17, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Hi,
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:02 AM Andrew Kondratev <
> >>> [email protected]>
> >>> > > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Hi Colleagues!
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Are there any plans about refactoring / modernisation of
> wicket's
> >>> > > > front-end
> >>> > > > > code?
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > None that I am aware of.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > What comes to my mind:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >    - Start using TypeScript for a new code, so we can have type
> >>> > safety
> >>> > > on
> >>> > > > >    the front end side as well. TypeScript is also released
> under
> >>> > apache
> >>> > > > >    license, so I think there should be no licensing issue with
> >>> this.
> >>> > > > >    Potentially, as a crazy idea Kotlin could also work, but I
> >>> think
> >>> > > > > TypeScript
> >>> > > > >    suits better and requires less effort and learning;
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I do not see big profit in using TypeScript for Wicket Ajax.
> >>> > > > Generally I prefer TypeScript over JavaScript, but only for
> bigger
> >>> code
> >>> > > > bases with more often development.
> >>> > > > wicket-ajax-jquery.js is quite stable in the last several years
> >>> (since
> >>> > > > 6.0.0). It is more stable for two main reasons:
> >>> > > > - we migrated the old vanilla JS code to jQuery based one. Note:
> >>> the
> >>> > > > vanilla JS version was fragile due to the browser
> >>> incompatibilities.
> >>> > > > - we added a *lot* of JS tests !
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > IMO using TypeScript won't add much value. It will only make the
> >>> build
> >>> > > > process more complex and a bit slower.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > >    - Potentially get rid of jQuery, it's not that useful in
> 2019
> >>> > > (wicket
> >>> > > > >    has recently dropped legacy IE support);
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > This has been suggested by someone else several months ago. But
> >>> AFAIK
> >>> > > > nothing has been done so far.
> >>> > > > The good thing is that one can replace wicket-ajax-jquery.js with
> >>> > > > wicket-ajax-xyz.js in his/her application by using
> >>> > > >
> >>> application.getJavaScriptLibrarySettings().setWicketAjaxReference(...).
> >>> > > > So both implementations could be supported by Wicket for some
> time
> >>> > with a
> >>> > > > deprecation cycle for the jQuery based one.
> >>> > > > These are the requirements I have:
> >>> > > > - same Wicket.xyz APIs are supported, because this is what the
> Java
> >>> > code
> >>> > > > uses
> >>> > > > - the test suite still passes
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > >    - Potentially introduce some modern lightweight front-end
> >>> > framework
> >>> > > > such
> >>> > > > >    as ReactJS;
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > What benefits would that bring ?
> >>> > > > I do not want to use ReactJS just because it is the latest
> fashion
> >>> in
> >>> > JS
> >>> > > > world.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Sorry if it was already discussed, I searched on
> >>> > > issues.apache.org/jira
> >>> > > > > and
> >>> > > > > didn't find anything relevant. Just wanted to discuss if
> >>> something
> >>> > like
> >>> > > > > this is possible for distant future release. Potentially I can
> >>> > devote a
> >>> > > > few
> >>> > > > > hours a week to this.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Thanks for the suggestions!
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Have a nice day,
> >>> > > > > Andrew
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
>

Reply via email to