Re: Looking for something lighter than Sproutcore or Cappuccino that integrates well with Django
Hi, I am also looking at Qooxdoo. What has been your experience so far? Will it integrate with Django templates and views? On Apr 8, 2:19 pm, Raymond Cotewrote: > Rob Madole wrote: > > The reason I'm posting is to ask the community if they have know of > > anything that is at a higher level than jQuery + jQuery UI and a lower > > level than Sproutcore/Cappuccino. I'd like to find something that has > > this kind of stuff in it: > > From what I've seen, once you make that leap of higher than > JQuery/Dojo/Mootools/Prototype/etc. you really do leap into a fully > client-side environment like Cappuccino or Sproutcore and relegate your > Django-side to be JSON-RPC or XML-RPC server. > > We've recently done the dance through a wide range of tools and ended up > selectingQooxdoo(qooxdoo.org) for a variety of reasons. > Also pretty heavy on the UI side, though it has capabilities to be used > as a component on an otherwise static site. > (we're drivingqooxdooagainst Twisted, and not Django, but the same > principle applies). > > Of course, if you want a Gmail feel, there's always GWT (or, since this > is a Python list, Pyjamas --http://code.google.com/p/pyjamas/) > --Ray --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Looking for something lighter than Sproutcore or Cappuccino that integrates well with Django
On Apr 10, 9:29 pm, lkclwrote: > > We've recently done the dance through a wide range of tools and ended up > > selecting Qooxdoo (qooxdoo.org) for a variety of reasons. http://demo.qooxdoo.org/current/playground/#Calculator ok - found one that works. and, actually, for a javascript framework, the source code and readability is not bad - i can see why you picked it. so - just for kicks i might write a calculator example, for pyjamas, tomorrow. it won't take long. so - yeah, imagine the functionality of qooxdoo, but you get to write stuff in python, not javascript. all the ui widget classes are in python, not javascript. that's pyjamas. l. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Looking for something lighter than Sproutcore or Cappuccino that integrates well with Django
> We've recently done the dance through a wide range of tools and ended up > selecting Qooxdoo (qooxdoo.org) for a variety of reasons. i'd love to be able to evaluate it, but i get this: Error: unterminated string literal Source File: http://demo.qooxdoo.org/current/demobrowser/script/demobrowser.js Line: 7214, Column: 177 Source Code: (function(){var m='',k="mshtml",j='"/ >',i="",h='" style="vertical- align:top;',g="scale",f="qx.client",e="qx.ui.decoration.Util",d=' Also pretty heavy on the UI side, though it has capabilities to be used > as a component on an otherwise static site. yehh, i did an integration of a pyjamas app with a joomla site - http://worldfairtradeday09.org (see events listings and remember that that's a live site, not a demo). so it's possible, but... yechh :) regarding the use of qooxdoo: * how do you anticipate being able to deal with situations where your app evolves beyond what qooxdoo has to offer? * does your application have to face a whopping great hit of the entire qooxdoo libraries (extjs has a two MEGABYTE hit of javascript, per page) even if you use a tiny proportion of its functionality? * has your organisation got the time, skills, and resources, to fix or improve qooxdoo if you encounter any bugs, flaws or missing features? not being funny, or anything, but given a choice between under 10,000 lines of python (1500 of which is the python-to-javascript compiler) and 50,000 lines of javascript, i know which one i'd pick, every time, even if the widget set that the smaller project provided was more "basic" than the "feature-rich" javascript framework/widget set. l. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Looking for something lighter than Sproutcore or Cappuccino that integrates well with Django
On Apr 8, 7:43 pm, Scott Newmanwrote: > > I've been looking at a couple of RIA frameworks, namely Sproutcore and > > Cappuccino. The feel a bit too heavy for me. Sproutcore does not > > integrate well with Django > > The reason I'm posting is to ask the community if they have know of > > anything that is at a higher level than jQuery + jQuery UI and a lower > > level than Sproutcore/Cappuccino. I'd like to find something that has > > this kind of stuff in it: > > - Client-side Javascript MVC implementation (Both Sproutcore and > > Cappuccino have controllers and view) > > - Easy layouts (I really > > likehttp://cappuccino.org/learn/tutorials/automatic-layout/) > > - Data bindings (Step 4 > > onhttp://www.sproutcore.com/documentation/hello-world-tutorial-2-your-f...) > > When I looked into some of the heavier JavaScript application > frameworks such as SproutCore, Cappucino, and ExtJS, the biggest > hurdle I faced was my own approach. > > These frameworks are designed to build complete web applications, not > to be sprinkled within Django template files the way I might do with > jQuery. yes - that's a fact. pyjamas is no exception. although gwt-ext proves that you can mix extjs into GWT, extjs itself is several tens of thousands of lines of custom-written javascript; gwt-ext itself is tens of thousands of lines of java - just the integration/startup in gwt-ext to plumb extjs into gwt is eight _thousand_ lines of javascript, on its own. so you _can_ plug in "other JS frameworks" into pyjamas but you end up thinking, "why in god's name am i spending so much time converting some ridiculous javascript widget set framework which i'm never going to fully understand, never going to be able to debug, never going to be able to extend; why am i going to make myself wholly dependent on that javascript framework, when i could be writing my own widgets, in python, writing my own easily customisable, easily understandable python framework that will be compiled to javascript to run in the web browser??" we have several people asking e.g. "i want prototype to be compatible with pyjamas!" and i warn them, "don't do it - convert the app from javascript to python / pyjamas and start from there". it's a different, _much_ easier paradigm. imagine that python-gtk2 was available for running in _all_ web browsers - that's what it's like, except the underlying widget set is far more flexible than python-gtk2. > Even with my jQuery projects, my initial results were a morass of > spaghetti code because I was approaching my client-side projects as a > web developer, relying on my experience with what I'd call "request > and response" thinking. I had to study the practices of traditional > stateful, event-driven desktop application development before my > attempts at these projects went more smoothly. (and I'm still > learning!) yeah - the design of pyjamas is much more along the lines of event- driven interaction that you'd expect of python-qt4 and python-gtk2 apps. you register for listening for click events with "addClickListener()". you register for keyboard events with "addKeyboardListener()". see http://pyjs.org/examples/helloworld/ for an utterly simple example of this. > If you settle on a client-side MVC framework, you'll probably want to > keep the frontend and backend completely separate and use Django for > web services calls to send and receive data to the frontend. yep. that's the approach i take to every single project with pyjamas, now - using JSONRPC it's just utterly trivial. you have to work _really_ hard to make life difficult for yourself - mostly in the form of getting over sheer disbelief that it should be much much harder than it is. see http://pyjs.org/examples/jsonrpc/output/JSONRPCExample.html don't use the python cgi-bin service, use the php one or install the examples on your own system and set up cgi-bin execution. l. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Looking for something lighter than Sproutcore or Cappuccino that integrates well with Django
On Apr 8, 2:34 pm, Rob Madolewrote: > I've been looking at a couple of RIA frameworks, namely Sproutcore and > Cappuccino. The feel a bit too heavy for me. Sproutcore does not > integrate well with Django. Cappuccino uses Objective-J as the > language and I'm not convinced this is a good choice for our team. > > The reason I'm posting is to ask the community if they have know of > anything that is at a higher level than jQuery + jQuery UI and a lower > level than Sproutcore/Cappuccino. well as raymond mentions, you _really_ should look at pyjamas http://pyjs.org or if you want to cause yourself a headache because you don't like python and prefer java - GWT. > I'd like to find something that has > this kind of stuff in it: > > - Client-side Javascript MVC implementation (Both Sproutcore and > Cappuccino have controllers and view) yep - i outline how pyjamas helps you keep at least the V and the C on the client-side, in javascript, but you're still actually writing python - in http://advogato.org/article/993.html > - Easy layouts (I really > likehttp://cappuccino.org/learn/tutorials/automatic-layout/) err, that's not enough to understand what the heck is going on, but i can guess pyjamas allows you to still use CSS stylesheets, and still allows you to call setWidth("80%") or "150px" etc. on widgets, and, also, the "Table"-style panels such as pyjamas.ui.Grid have a "CellFormatter" option which allows you to set the width and height (in pixels, em or %, whatever) of individual cells. FlexTable also allows you to set what "rowspan" and "colspan" of individual cells. > - Data bindings (Step 4 > onhttp://www.sproutcore.com/documentation/hello-world-tutorial-2-your-f...) i don't understand in the _slightest_ bit what that's about. but it smells like it's substituting a widget into some HTML. if that's the case, then pyjamas.ui.RootPanel() takes an optional string argument which can be the "id" in the DOM model HTML, naming the element in the HTML page that you want the widget to be attached to. see http://pyjs.org/examples/dynamictable/ - DynaTable.py look for this: slot = RootPanel("calendar") and then note that in public/DynaTable.html there is a > So something less heavy, yep. pyjamas is about 9,000 lines - total. > less "Desktop" feel; well, that's up to you. > more Web 2.0 (Gmail, Digg, Delicious). yep. definitely. > But more organization than a blank HTML and a >
Re: Looking for something lighter than Sproutcore or Cappuccino that integrates well with Django
You did kinda answer the question. It's good to know that others are going through this too. I was looking for confirmation that this was actually a problem. The spaghetti code, I definitely see that too. Because of the glob of junk that you have to deal my projects end up being a lot of glue and duct tape with a little bit of actual stuff in it. Thanks for sharing. On Apr 8, 2:43 pm, Scott Newmanwrote: > > I've been looking at a couple of RIA frameworks, namely Sproutcore and > > Cappuccino. The feel a bit too heavy for me. Sproutcore does not > > integrate well with Django > > The reason I'm posting is to ask the community if they have know of > > anything that is at a higher level than jQuery + jQuery UI and a lower > > level than Sproutcore/Cappuccino. I'd like to find something that has > > this kind of stuff in it: > > - Client-side Javascript MVC implementation (Both Sproutcore and > > Cappuccino have controllers and view) > > - Easy layouts (I really > > likehttp://cappuccino.org/learn/tutorials/automatic-layout/) > > - Data bindings (Step 4 > > onhttp://www.sproutcore.com/documentation/hello-world-tutorial-2-your-f...) > > When I looked into some of the heavier JavaScript application > frameworks such as SproutCore, Cappucino, and ExtJS, the biggest > hurdle I faced was my own approach. > > These frameworks are designed to build complete web applications, not > to be sprinkled within Django template files the way I might do with > jQuery. After talking with Erich from the SproutCore project, I > decided the best approach was to build the entire front-end > application in static HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, relying on ajax calls > to Django URLs for backend data. (I use Apache to serve my static HTML/ > JS/CSS files and don't even process them with Django to save the > overhead) > > Even with my jQuery projects, my initial results were a morass of > spaghetti code because I was approaching my client-side projects as a > web developer, relying on my experience with what I'd call "request > and response" thinking. I had to study the practices of traditional > stateful, event-driven desktop application development before my > attempts at these projects went more smoothly. (and I'm still > learning!) > > If you settle on a client-side MVC framework, you'll probably want to > keep the frontend and backend completely separate and use Django for > web services calls to send and receive data to the frontend. The > client-side controllers will handle the data calls and binding to the > UI controls in the view. If instead you want a site that's mostly > driven by Django but has some extra functionality, I'd probably stick > with something lighter like jQuery. > > I know this isn't the answer to your question, but since I've faced > the same issues, I thought I'd share. Hope this helps. > > -- Scott --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Looking for something lighter than Sproutcore or Cappuccino that integrates well with Django
Rob Madole wrote: > The reason I'm posting is to ask the community if they have know of > anything that is at a higher level than jQuery + jQuery UI and a lower > level than Sproutcore/Cappuccino. I'd like to find something that has > this kind of stuff in it: > From what I've seen, once you make that leap of higher than JQuery/Dojo/Mootools/Prototype/etc. you really do leap into a fully client-side environment like Cappuccino or Sproutcore and relegate your Django-side to be JSON-RPC or XML-RPC server. We've recently done the dance through a wide range of tools and ended up selecting Qooxdoo (qooxdoo.org) for a variety of reasons. Also pretty heavy on the UI side, though it has capabilities to be used as a component on an otherwise static site. (we're driving qooxdoo against Twisted, and not Django, but the same principle applies). Of course, if you want a Gmail feel, there's always GWT (or, since this is a Python list, Pyjamas -- http://code.google.com/p/pyjamas/) --Ray --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Looking for something lighter than Sproutcore or Cappuccino that integrates well with Django
> I've been looking at a couple of RIA frameworks, namely Sproutcore and > Cappuccino. The feel a bit too heavy for me. Sproutcore does not > integrate well with Django > The reason I'm posting is to ask the community if they have know of > anything that is at a higher level than jQuery + jQuery UI and a lower > level than Sproutcore/Cappuccino. I'd like to find something that has > this kind of stuff in it: > - Client-side Javascript MVC implementation (Both Sproutcore and > Cappuccino have controllers and view) > - Easy layouts (I really > likehttp://cappuccino.org/learn/tutorials/automatic-layout/) > - Data bindings (Step 4 > onhttp://www.sproutcore.com/documentation/hello-world-tutorial-2-your-f...) When I looked into some of the heavier JavaScript application frameworks such as SproutCore, Cappucino, and ExtJS, the biggest hurdle I faced was my own approach. These frameworks are designed to build complete web applications, not to be sprinkled within Django template files the way I might do with jQuery. After talking with Erich from the SproutCore project, I decided the best approach was to build the entire front-end application in static HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, relying on ajax calls to Django URLs for backend data. (I use Apache to serve my static HTML/ JS/CSS files and don't even process them with Django to save the overhead) Even with my jQuery projects, my initial results were a morass of spaghetti code because I was approaching my client-side projects as a web developer, relying on my experience with what I'd call "request and response" thinking. I had to study the practices of traditional stateful, event-driven desktop application development before my attempts at these projects went more smoothly. (and I'm still learning!) If you settle on a client-side MVC framework, you'll probably want to keep the frontend and backend completely separate and use Django for web services calls to send and receive data to the frontend. The client-side controllers will handle the data calls and binding to the UI controls in the view. If instead you want a site that's mostly driven by Django but has some extra functionality, I'd probably stick with something lighter like jQuery. I know this isn't the answer to your question, but since I've faced the same issues, I thought I'd share. Hope this helps. -- Scott --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Looking for something lighter than Sproutcore or Cappuccino that integrates well with Django
I've been looking at a couple of RIA frameworks, namely Sproutcore and Cappuccino. The feel a bit too heavy for me. Sproutcore does not integrate well with Django. Cappuccino uses Objective-J as the language and I'm not convinced this is a good choice for our team. The reason I'm posting is to ask the community if they have know of anything that is at a higher level than jQuery + jQuery UI and a lower level than Sproutcore/Cappuccino. I'd like to find something that has this kind of stuff in it: - Client-side Javascript MVC implementation (Both Sproutcore and Cappuccino have controllers and view) - Easy layouts (I really like http://cappuccino.org/learn/tutorials/automatic-layout/) - Data bindings (Step 4 on http://www.sproutcore.com/documentation/hello-world-tutorial-2-your-first-viewsadsteste/) So something less heavy, less "Desktop" feel; more Web 2.0 (Gmail, Digg, Delicious). But more organization than a blank HTML and a