Agree with both Dolf and Benjamin. On 17 January 2011 13:50, Dolf Schimmel <dolfschim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Benjamin here. Though I think that the Zend_Dojo allows > for more extensibility than Zendx_Jquery. > > However, if we decide to drop ZendX_Jquery (if not, who'll maintain > it?), I think we at least should write some decent documentation on > how one should decently implement Js with ZF. > > Dolf > --Freeaqingme > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> > wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > 2 years ago I was pretty sure of the Dojo and jQuery > components/integration into ZF. I have since changed my mind radically. I do > maintained the jQuery component but I would suggest to drop it for 2.0 for > the following reasons: > > > > 1. It encourages writing no JS code at all, this will bite you in the ass > heavily if you find out that you need to customize the jQuery logic. > > 2. It does not encourage javascript code re-use (jQuery plugins are the > way to go here) > > 3. Heavy usage causes technical debt, it becomes impossible to rewrite > your app using proper jquery/javscript code. > > 4. The PHP code required to write "ZendX JQuery" code is often more than > the jQuery required alone. > > > > Since only people that don't know javascript "benefit" from this > extension (in the short run) I suggest to drop it not to encourage people to > run into the wrong direction by using it (they will thank us later). > > > > I won't attempt to rewrite ZendX jQuery for 2.0 and i understand that > this means it will be dropped automatically. I suggest nobody to take over > maintenance for the previously discussed arguments. > > > > greetings, > > Benjamin > > > -- Paul A. Boivin web engineer / consultant www.blink-tech.com USA/Canada: (877) 832-1641 International: (941) 306-3613 Fax: (941) 531-5991 Skype: paul-boivin
