Re: Dojo tree 1.4
http://markmail.org/message/g777vmrachizruef Sam and Raj made good points too... Jacques From: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the GWT-EXT threat because users continue to demand an application feel when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone else looked seriously at Vaadin? Jacques Le Roux wrote: Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Before or after December 21? -Adrian On 6/15/2010 6:52 PM, Scott Gray wrote: After a 2 second glance it looks interesting enough to bookmark. Based on my current wish list I should be able to comment further in 2012 :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/06/2010, at 1:18 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the GWT-EXT threat because users continue to demand an application feel when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone else looked seriously at Vaadin? Jacques Le Roux wrote: Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Jacques Le Roux wrote: http://markmail.org/message/g777vmrachizruef Sam and Raj made good points too... Whoops. Sorry to be redundant. Thanks for the pointer! -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the GWT-EXT threat because users continue to demand an application feel when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone else looked seriously at Vaadin? Jacques Le Roux wrote: Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
After a 2 second glance it looks interesting enough to bookmark. Based on my current wish list I should be able to comment further in 2012 :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/06/2010, at 1:18 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the GWT-EXT threat because users continue to demand an application feel when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone else looked seriously at Vaadin? Jacques Le Roux wrote: Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Hey Guys, From wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaadin Vaadin utilizes Google Web Toolkit for rendering the resulting web page. While Google Web Toolkit operates only client-side (i.e. a browser's JavaScript engine) – which could lead to trust issues – Vaadin adds server-side validation to all actions. This means that if the client data is tampered with, the server notices this and doesn't allow it. So its not really a counter to the threat, its a way to make life easier to get into GWT Sam On 16/06/2010 09:52, Scott Gray wrote: After a 2 second glance it looks interesting enough to bookmark. Based on my current wish list I should be able to comment further in 2012 :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/06/2010, at 1:18 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the GWT-EXT threat because users continue to demand an application feel when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone else looked seriously at Vaadin? Jacques Le Roux wrote: Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Damn, I should have opted for the 3 second glance! Thanks Sam, good to know. Regards Scott On 16/06/2010, at 2:32 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote: Hey Guys, From wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaadin Vaadin utilizes Google Web Toolkit for rendering the resulting web page. While Google Web Toolkit operates only client-side (i.e. a browser's JavaScript engine) – which could lead to trust issues – Vaadin adds server-side validation to all actions. This means that if the client data is tampered with, the server notices this and doesn't allow it. So its not really a counter to the threat, its a way to make life easier to get into GWT Sam On 16/06/2010 09:52, Scott Gray wrote: After a 2 second glance it looks interesting enough to bookmark. Based on my current wish list I should be able to comment further in 2012 :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/06/2010, at 1:18 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the GWT-EXT threat because users continue to demand an application feel when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone else looked seriously at Vaadin? Jacques Le Roux wrote: Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Vaddin is similar to the Eclipse RAP as both operates on server side though RAP has a well established API and RAP applications can also work as Desktop applications (theoretically) without code change and concept is called single sourcing. Thanks, Raj On 16/06/10 08:02, Sam Hamilton wrote: Hey Guys, From wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaadin Vaadin utilizes Google Web Toolkit for rendering the resulting web page. While Google Web Toolkit operates only client-side (i.e. a browser's JavaScript engine) – which could lead to trust issues – Vaadin adds server-side validation to all actions. This means that if the client data is tampered with, the server notices this and doesn't allow it. So its not really a counter to the threat, its a way to make life easier to get into GWT Sam On 16/06/2010 09:52, Scott Gray wrote: After a 2 second glance it looks interesting enough to bookmark. Based on my current wish list I should be able to comment further in 2012 :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/06/2010, at 1:18 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: I think you make a really great point here. JQuery is a utility not a framework and when it comes to utility it really delivers the goods. Looking back to Dojo, I still believe we need something to counter the GWT-EXT threat because users continue to demand an application feel when it comes to ERP. I find Vaadin (vaadin.com) very interesting, if somewhat daunting in scale. It appears to offer the level of abstraction necessary to integrate the screen and form widget systems and is under the Apache License (which makes it very, very interesting). Has anyone else looked seriously at Vaadin? Jacques Le Roux wrote: Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html From: Atul Vani atul.v...@hotwaxmedia.com +1 jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. true indeed. -- Thanks Regards Atul Vani Enterprise Software Developer HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ We are the Global Leaders in Apache OFBiz, Google 'ofbiz' and see for yourself. Sam Hamilton wrote: It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. Anyway a few links for people interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. Sam On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. - More code to maintain - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? - Another API for users to learn - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. Regards Scott On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating connector code in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. -Adrian On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Good morning guys, sounds good to me. I will now start implementing a example widget based onjQuery and provide a patch asap. So erveryone can see how jQuery works. Have a nice day. Sascha 2010/6/9 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Looks like we have a good consensus around Jquery so far. I must say that the main arugment for Dojo was its serious. It's a real consistent framework with embedded widgets, not only an API. All those third parties Jquery's widgets (and Prototypes's) are a bit frightening. On the other hand when you want to upgrade to 1.4 you find that it's not as serious as we thought, and I'm *very disapointed* about that. And as those widgets are open source, it's not as frightening as it 1st seems. For instance, we use a third party calendar and we have already poked in (for layered lookups) without issues. At the time we decided to embed Doo and Prototype some pointed also Jquery with good arguments [1] [2][3]. At this time we decided that anyway we were not tied to any Ajax frameworks yet. So yes, +1 for me also, especially now that Sascha wants to tackle it, and I'm sure we will support his effort! Thanks guys Jacques [1] Yoav Shapira in 2006: http://markmail.org/message/ftw7pjfrzxyxmsuz [2] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/jf5qvxblvrbmtvae (and we know now than when there is a dual licensing we can pick the one we want, here MIT :o) [3] Ean in 2007 http://markmail.org/message/vqjjtribdrulhbl3. When the serious one is less serious than the other (demo in time). Dojo is known to have documentation problems also... Found this link http://www.ajaxdaddy.com/demo-dojo-fisheye.html From: Atul Vani atul.v...@hotwaxmedia.com +1 jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. true indeed. -- Thanks Regards Atul Vani Enterprise Software Developer HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ We are the Global Leaders in Apache OFBiz, Google 'ofbiz' and see for yourself. Sam Hamilton wrote: It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. Anyway a few links for people interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. Sam On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. - More code to maintain - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? - Another API for users to learn - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. Regards Scott On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating connector code in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. -Adrian On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Le 09/06/2010 10:59, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Good morning guys, sounds good to me. I will now start implementing a example widget based onjQuery and provide a patch asap. So erveryone can see how jQuery works. Have a nice day. Sascha 2010/6/9 Jacques Le Rouxjacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi Sascha, do you need a branch or something ? Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Le 09/06/2010 11:37, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use rather a jquery branch? From the different inputs we had on this thread, yes, I think so.. Just wait for the svn to be repaired ! Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use rather a jquery branch? Jacques From: Erwan de FERRIERES erwan.de-ferrie...@nereide.fr Le 09/06/2010 10:59, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Good morning guys, sounds good to me. I will now start implementing a example widget based onjQuery and provide a patch asap. So erveryone can see how jQuery works. Have a nice day. Sascha 2010/6/9 Jacques Le Rouxjacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi Sascha, do you need a branch or something ? Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
jep another brunch would be great. Our first steps should not effect the trunk i think;) Cheers 2010/6/9 Erwan de FERRIERES erwan.de-ferrie...@nereide.fr Le 09/06/2010 11:37, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use rather a jquery branch? From the different inputs we had on this thread, yes, I think so.. Just wait for the svn to be repaired ! Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz -- Sascha Rodekamp Lynx-Consulting GmbH Johanniskirchplatz 6 D-33615 Bielefeld http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
I simply renames dojo1.4 in jquery, it's available Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com jep another brunch would be great. Our first steps should not effect the trunk i think;) Cheers 2010/6/9 Erwan de FERRIERES erwan.de-ferrie...@nereide.fr Le 09/06/2010 11:37, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use rather a jquery branch? From the different inputs we had on this thread, yes, I think so.. Just wait for the svn to be repaired ! Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz -- Sascha Rodekamp Lynx-Consulting GmbH Johanniskirchplatz 6 D-33615 Bielefeld http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Cool thanks Jacques ... i'will have a look later and provide a first testing patch. Cheers Sascha 2010/6/9 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com I simply renames dojo1.4 in jquery, it's available Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com jep another brunch would be great. Our first steps should not effect the trunk i think;) Cheers 2010/6/9 Erwan de FERRIERES erwan.de-ferrie...@nereide.fr Le 09/06/2010 11:37, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : BTW I opened the dojo1.4 branch but I guess we will drop it and use rather a jquery branch? From the different inputs we had on this thread, yes, I think so.. Just wait for the svn to be repaired ! Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz -- Sascha Rodekamp Lynx-Consulting GmbH Johanniskirchplatz 6 D-33615 Bielefeld http://www.lynx.de -- Sascha Rodekamp Lynx-Consulting GmbH Johanniskirchplatz 6 D-33615 Bielefeld http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype framework with similar thing from Dojo. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. One sample application(or we can say functionality) would be of great help. Then everyone can see the live functionality and can comment accordingly! -- Ashish On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com wrote: Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype framework with similar thing from Dojo. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
This is line with I said earlier. We should instead use jquery. And to some extend we need to be ready to help those community to build and maintain tools that help us. I will prefer jquery over dojo. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com wrote: Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype framework with similar thing from Dojo. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Hi Sascha, I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another every time is not. Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has decided ! Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating connector code in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. -Adrian On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Hi Sascha, I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another every time is not. Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has decided ! Cheers,
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. - More code to maintain - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? - Another API for users to learn - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. Regards Scott On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating connector code in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. -Adrian On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Hi Sascha, I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another every time is not. Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has decided ! Cheers, smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. Anyway a few links for people interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. Sam On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. - More code to maintain - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? - Another API for users to learn - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. Regards Scott On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating connector code in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. -Adrian On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Hi Sascha, I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another every time is not. Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has decided ! Cheers,
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
+1 - I like Prototype, but mostly because we know it well and JQuery was yet the framework that it is today. You're exactly right that Dojo is heavey and Prototype is a library for javascript geeks :) JQuery is likely the best choice on the market right now. Cheers, Ruppert On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote: It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. Anyway a few links for people interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. Sam On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. - More code to maintain - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? - Another API for users to learn - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. Regards Scott On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating connector code in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. -Adrian On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Hi Sascha, I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another every time is not. Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has decided ! Cheers,
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Comparision article: http://blog.creonfx.com/javascript/mootools-vs-jquery-vs-prototype-vs-yui-vs-dojo-comparison-revised -- Ashish On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: +1 - I like Prototype, but mostly because we know it well and JQuery was yet the framework that it is today. You're exactly right that Dojo is heavey and Prototype is a library for javascript geeks :) JQuery is likely the best choice on the market right now. Cheers, Ruppert On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote: It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. Anyway a few links for people interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. Sam On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. - More code to maintain - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? - Another API for users to learn - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. Regards Scott On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating connector code in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. -Adrian On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Hi Sascha, I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another every time is not. Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has decided ! Cheers,
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Good idea Sascha, Yes jQuery is much better then Dojo and much faster then Prototype. Thanks Regards -- Deepak Dixit HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype framework with similar thing from Dojo. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Yes Sascha, i am agree with you , jquery is light more efficient than all other js frameworks. -- Thanks Regards: Ankit Jain Enterprise Software Developer Hotwax Media Pvt. Ltd. www.hotwaxmedia.com On Tuesday 08 June 2010 07:42 PM, Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Anil Patelanil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype framework with similar thing from Dojo. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crumadrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patelanil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patelanil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patelanil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekampsascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Rouxjacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
+1 for JQuery, it might be pain to learn newer tech, but as we recently start looking into it, we found It has much more easy ways to handle things. Rishi Solanki Manager, Enterprise Software Development HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. Direct: +91-9893287847 http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Deepak Dixit deepak.di...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: Good idea Sascha, Yes jQuery is much better then Dojo and much faster then Prototype. Thanks Regards -- Deepak Dixit HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype framework with similar thing from Dojo. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
+1 jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. true indeed. -- Thanks Regards Atul Vani Enterprise Software Developer HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ We are the Global Leaders in Apache OFBiz, Google 'ofbiz' and see for yourself. Sam Hamilton wrote: It would make a number of my developers very happy if we migrated over to jQuery. Its been described to me that Dojo is heavy and Prototype as a library for javascript geeks where as jQuery is simpler, more flexible and faster to use (coding is about 50% quicker than Prototype one developer has reported), plus now that its community is really building the number of plugins and scripts are increasing very fast. Anyway a few links for people interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_JavaScript_frameworks http://ajaxian.com/archives/prototype-and-jquery-a-code-comparison Really I think it boils down that we pick one framework and then run with it. All three are solid choices so then it really comes down to making coding a pleasure in which case jQuery wins it for me. Sam On 09/06/2010 06:03, Scott Gray wrote: My personal opinion is that adding an additional layer of javascript has more downsides that it does upsides. - More code to maintain - Slightly hackish, multi-parameter strings? - Another API for users to learn - Abstracting basic method calls is one thing but what about the more complex object oriented features of the libraries? Not to mention that I think the reason that people have a javascript library preference in the first place is because they are familiar with the APIs, but if we abstract the API away then they don't really gain that benefit. IMO sometimes trying to be everything to everybody just ends up with us being too complex for anybody and what we really need to do is just pick a javascript library and stick with it. Regards Scott On 9/06/2010, at 4:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: I'm not a JavaScript expert, so I don't have any strong opinions on the choice of a library. I have some suggestions, however. I haven't looked at the JavaScript library integration lately, but I recall that it started out with creating connector code in selectall.js. In other words, selectall.js was used as a facade so the third-party library can be swapped out without too much effort. That's why JavaScript function arguments are sent as Strings - so the String arguments can be parsed into whatever form the third-party library needs. While this effort is underway, it would be nice if we could have a separate file for the library facade. I think selectall.js was used at the start out of laziness - the file was already there. Now the name of that file doesn't match its contents. -Adrian On 6/8/2010 8:17 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: Le 08/06/2010 16:12, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit : Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Hi Sascha, I think we have to make up our minds, and make a choice. Then, go for it. I had the same probleme as you a while ago, when introducing charting. Changing to another library is ok with me, but going from one to another every time is not. Maybe we should raise a vote, and then make with what the communauty has decided ! Cheers,
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
Hi Jacques, cool ... i implemented the new Tree Widget ... it works fine (and looks nice) :-) Tomorrow i will prepare some patches for the new brunch. But for now it's time to prepare the barbecue :-) So have a nice evening (i hope as sunny as here in germany) So long Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype framework with similar thing from Dojo. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
Forwarded again :( This time I removed the links and replaced them by tinylinks Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4 Forwarding, not sure why this did not get through, maybe the links... Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:03 AM Subject: Dojo tree 1.4 Hi, I was discussing with Ankit and Sascha (who, I'm sure you know, greatly helped with Atul on the layered lookups) about new things to improve in the UI. They were interested by the tree and reported this link http://tinyurl.com/38xrxd5 We have already first fruits at http://tinyurl.com/3axfg75 but we use an older (1.2?) version of Dojo and we need 1.4 for new stuff like different icons on each node, dragdrop, etc. see http://tinyurl.com/37srt6k and you may look for more in pages (I searched only in title) Unfortunately this is not only code enhancement as the 1.4 works a bit differently than previous one for trees. So the code related to the OFBiz link above needs a bit of revamping. This message to let you know that there will be an effort on the Dojo tree, because I know some don't like to have many js libs in OFBiz. So if you feel we should do otherwise please speak... For me it's not a problem to have Prototype and Dojo as long as they don't collide. Jacques
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
I have mixed feelings. IMO we should use prototype (prototype based UI components), and not use Dojo. If we are really not happy with UI plugins in prototype then I'll personally prefer JQuery over Dojo for sure. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Forwarded again :( This time I removed the links and replaced them by tinylinks Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4 Forwarding, not sure why this did not get through, maybe the links... Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:03 AM Subject: Dojo tree 1.4 Hi, I was discussing with Ankit and Sascha (who, I'm sure you know, greatly helped with Atul on the layered lookups) about new things to improve in the UI. They were interested by the tree and reported this link http://tinyurl.com/38xrxd5 We have already first fruits at http://tinyurl.com/3axfg75 but we use an older (1.2?) version of Dojo and we need 1.4 for new stuff like different icons on each node, dragdrop, etc. see http://tinyurl.com/37srt6k and you may look for more in pages (I searched only in title) Unfortunately this is not only code enhancement as the 1.4 works a bit differently than previous one for trees. So the code related to the OFBiz link above needs a bit of revamping. This message to let you know that there will be an effort on the Dojo tree, because I know some don't like to have many js libs in OFBiz. So if you feel we should do otherwise please speak... For me it's not a problem to have Prototype and Dojo as long as they don't collide. Jacques
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
I'd have to agree, I still feel pretty strongly that we should only have one javascript library in OFBiz. I've used this tree before on top of prototype: http://weblog.axent.pl/examples/js.drag-drop-tree/ I'm not sure how it compares feature-wise to the dojo tree but I found it met my needs just fine and didn't require any strange html layouts or non-compliant xhtml attributes like dojo does. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 2/06/2010, at 12:42 PM, Anil Patel wrote: I have mixed feelings. IMO we should use prototype (prototype based UI components), and not use Dojo. If we are really not happy with UI plugins in prototype then I'll personally prefer JQuery over Dojo for sure. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Forwarded again :( This time I removed the links and replaced them by tinylinks Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4 Forwarding, not sure why this did not get through, maybe the links... Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:03 AM Subject: Dojo tree 1.4 Hi, I was discussing with Ankit and Sascha (who, I'm sure you know, greatly helped with Atul on the layered lookups) about new things to improve in the UI. They were interested by the tree and reported this link http://tinyurl.com/38xrxd5 We have already first fruits at http://tinyurl.com/3axfg75 but we use an older (1.2?) version of Dojo and we need 1.4 for new stuff like different icons on each node, dragdrop, etc. see http://tinyurl.com/37srt6k and you may look for more in pages (I searched only in title) Unfortunately this is not only code enhancement as the 1.4 works a bit differently than previous one for trees. So the code related to the OFBiz link above needs a bit of revamping. This message to let you know that there will be an effort on the Dojo tree, because I know some don't like to have many js libs in OFBiz. So if you feel we should do otherwise please speak... For me it's not a problem to have Prototype and Dojo as long as they don't collide. Jacques smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Thanks Anil, Any other opinions? I have no problems to use both, or even JQuery. But I must say that I have never used prototype based UI components. Could you elaborate Anil, why your choices, what are the reasons? Have you already selected some prototype based UI components? Is there something which could replace the Dojo tree? I don't like much the idea of external plugins that could not be supported in time :/ Jacques From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com I have mixed feelings. IMO we should use prototype (prototype based UI components), and not use Dojo. If we are really not happy with UI plugins in prototype then I'll personally prefer JQuery over Dojo for sure. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Forwarded again :( This time I removed the links and replaced them by tinylinks Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4 Forwarding, not sure why this did not get through, maybe the links... Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:03 AM Subject: Dojo tree 1.4 Hi, I was discussing with Ankit and Sascha (who, I'm sure you know, greatly helped with Atul on the layered lookups) about new things to improve in the UI. They were interested by the tree and reported this link http://tinyurl.com/38xrxd5 We have already first fruits at http://tinyurl.com/3axfg75 but we use an older (1.2?) version of Dojo and we need 1.4 for new stuff like different icons on each node, dragdrop, etc. see http://tinyurl.com/37srt6k and you may look for more in pages (I searched only in title) Unfortunately this is not only code enhancement as the 1.4 works a bit differently than previous one for trees. So the code related to the OFBiz link above needs a bit of revamping. This message to let you know that there will be an effort on the Dojo tree, because I know some don't like to have many js libs in OFBiz. So if you feel we should do otherwise please speak... For me it's not a problem to have Prototype and Dojo as long as they don't collide. Jacques
Re: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4
Hey Guys, for me it doesn't matter if i extend the UI with Prototype or Dojo both libraries have it's advantages (and disadvantages). Maybe we could think of updating Prototype to Version 1.7_RC2 or updating Dojo to 1.4. Jep Anil i prefere JQuery, too. But we can' use all these libraries at the same time (i tested a few days ago and you will get a lot of problems regarding to equal method defintions and so on) and in my opinion it's to much work to replace all JavaScript Sources which are based on Dojo or prototype with JQuery. So i had a lock at the new Dojo and i'm with Jacques to upgrade the library and use the new Widgets for our UI (like the tree). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/1 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Forwarded again :( This time I removed the links and replaced them by tinylinks Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4 Forwarding, not sure why this did not get through, maybe the links... Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:03 AM Subject: Dojo tree 1.4 Hi, I was discussing with Ankit and Sascha (who, I'm sure you know, greatly helped with Atul on the layered lookups) about new things to improve in the UI. They were interested by the tree and reported this link http://tinyurl.com/38xrxd5 We have already first fruits at http://tinyurl.com/3axfg75 but we use an older (1.2?) version of Dojo and we need 1.4 for new stuff like different icons on each node, dragdrop, etc. see http://tinyurl.com/37srt6k and you may look for more in pages (I searched only in title) Unfortunately this is not only code enhancement as the 1.4 works a bit differently than previous one for trees. So the code related to the OFBiz link above needs a bit of revamping. This message to let you know that there will be an effort on the Dojo tree, because I know some don't like to have many js libs in OFBiz. So if you feel we should do otherwise please speak... For me it's not a problem to have Prototype and Dojo as long as they don't collide. Jacques -- http://www.lynx.de
